GOKUL BALA ROY Vs. SARAT CHANDRA GHOSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of the Plaintiff of an ejectment suit. The suit was instituted in the trial Court by the Petitioner for evisting the Defendant opposite party from premises No. 119, Manoharpukur Road, bearing a rental of Rs. 20 per month on the ground that the premises were required reasonably for her own., use and occupation. The Defendant opposite party filed a defence in that suit. When the suit was in progress before the trial Court, an application was filed by the Plaintiff for striking out the defence of the opposite party against delivery of possession under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. This application was heard by the learned Munsif on the 2nd August,1956 and he rejected the application. The present Rule was obtained by the Plaintiff Petitioner against that order.

(2.) It is not disputed before me that summons in this case was served upon the Defendant opposite party on the 15th May, 1956. It is not also disputed that rent was payable by the tenant according to Bengali calendar month. After the service of summons the tenant deposited rent twice with the Rent Controller, namely, rent for the months of Baisak and Jaistha, 1363 B.S. These rents were deposited within the 15th day of the succeeding month. Admittedly rent for the month of Asar, 1363 B.S. was deposited in the trial Court on the 18th 1363 B.S., that is, after the expiry of the statutory period for making the deposit.

(3.) Mr. Basu appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff Petitioner contended that according to Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, rents for Baisakh and Jaistha which were deposited after service of summons should have been deposited in court and not with the Rent Controller because Section 17 recognises only two modes of payment or deposit, namely, "deposit in court" or 'payment to the landlord" and it does not recognise deposit with the Rent Controller. In my judgment, this contention is without any substance. It may easily be imagined that after the institution of an ejectment suit feelings between the parties get strained and the landlord cannot be expected to be willing to accept rent amicably. In these circumstances, the tenant may after the institution of a suit deposit rent with the Rent Controller in the prescribed manner under Section 21 of the Act referred to above, and if such deposit is made in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, then under Sub-section (3) of Section 22, a deposit of rent with the Rent Controller should be taken as equivalent to payment to the landlord. Under these circumstances, I hold that deposit of rent in this particular case for the months of Baisakh and Jaistha, 1363 B.S., must be regarded as equivalent to payment of rent to the landlord within the meaning of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The first contention urged on behalf of the Petitioner must, therefore, fail.