GANESH CHANDRA GANGULY Vs. MAHABIR PROSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Rules are directed against two orders under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Petitioner is the landlord who filed two suits against two different tenants in respect of two different rooms in the same building. The facts are the same in both the cases. The tenants after the suits were filed are required under Section 17(1) to deposit in Court or to pay to the landlord the amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment was made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of 8 1/3 per cent, per annum from the date when such amount was payable up to the date of deposit. Admittedly the tenants in both the cases deposited the amount referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 17 within the time prescribed there but they deposited it not in the Court in which the suits were pending but before the Rent Controller and the only question for decision now is whether these deposits before the Rent Controller, were valid deposits and if not. whether under Sub-section (3) the Court is bound to strike out the defence. The learned trial court held that the deposits before the Rent Controller amounted to payment to the landlord direct. This view is seriously contested by Mr. Mookerjee on behalf of the Petitioner and it is to be seen whether this view is correct or not. Sub-section (3) of Section IT of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956, runs as follows:

(2.) It is obvious from the wording of the section that in the event of a failure to deposit or to pay the amount referred to in Sub-section (1), the Court has no option but to strike out the defence against delivery of possession. The whole question is whether there has been a failure to deposit or to pay the amount referred to in Sub-section (1). We are not here concerned with Sub-section (2) at all. Admittedly, the amounts required to be deposited or paid were deposited before the Rent Controller within the time prescribed. But Sub-section (1) distinctly provides that the deposit must be made in Court and there is no doubt that the deposits made before the Rent Controller are not strictly valid deposits according to the terms of Section 17(1). In this connection, my attention has been drawn to three decisions under the Act of 1950, one of which is reported and one reported decision under the present Act. In Civil Revision Case No. 2620 of 1952 Unreported decision of Chunder, J., dated Dec. 2, 1953. in Civil Revision' No. 2620 of 1952 Chunder, J, held that a deposit of current rent made in the Rent Controller's office was not a valid deposit under Section 14(4) of the Act of 1950. In Civil Rule No. 2054 of 1952 Unreported decision of Guha, J., dated in Civil Rule No. 2054 of 1952. Guha, J. held on an elaborate discussion of the various provisions of the Act of 1950 that although in Section 14(4) there was no clear mention of the place where the deposit was to be made, the legislature intended that the deposit should be made in Court and it was accordingly held that the deposit before the Rent Controller was not a valid deposit under Section 14(4) of the Act of 1950. In Sarah Saul Jacob v. Messrs. Buckingham Court Ltd.,1956 60 CalWN 754, Lahiri, J. held that as Section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, did not mention the place where the deposit of rent was to be made and as there was a distinction between non- fulfilment of a statutory condition and non-observance of a condition imposed by the Court, it was always open to the Court to consider whether when it was the Court that ordered the deposit to be made in Court and when the deposit was not made in Court according to the terms of the Court's order but elsewhere, the irregularity was the result of an honest mistake or a deliberate act on the part of the tenant calculated to harass the landlord and in the former case the Court would condone the irregularity, but in the latter case it would not. These are the three decisions under the old Act. In Gokul bala Roy v. Sarat Chandra Ghosal,1957 61 CalWN 890 Renupada Mukherjee, J. held that where the tenant deposited after the institution of the suit rent with the Rent Controller in the prescribed manner under Section 21 of the Act, such payment should be taken as equivalent to payment to the landlord in view of the provisions of Section 22(3) of the Act.

(3.) The two suits out of which these Rules arise were instituted on January 4, 195T and the summonses were finally served on February 15, 1957. Then the Defendants deposited with the Rent Controller the rent for February 1957 on March 12. 1957, for March 1957 on April 11, 1957 and for April 1957 on May 10, 1957. These rents were deposited in the Rent Controller's office and thereafter, I am told, rents are being' deposited in the Court.