KRISHNA GOPAL GHOSAL Vs. MIHIR BARAN NANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By their order, dated the 10th August, 1984 of Anil Kumar Sen and S. R. Roy, JJ, this revision has been placed before the Special Bench for answering the question whether or not poverty would be a ground for condonation of delay in depositing monthly rent in terms of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The plaintiff opposite parties have brought a suit for eviction of the defendant petitioner on the ground of their reasonable requirement for use and occupation of the suit premises. After entering appearance, the defendant had made an application under sub-section (2A) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. By his order, dated the 18th August, 1978, the learned Munsif determined a sum of Rs. 1750 as the total arrear rent due and the interest payable thereon and directed the defendant petitioner to pay or deposit the said amount by instalment of Rs. 350 per month. It is not very much disputed that the defendant tenant had fully complied with the said order for deposit bypassed by the court below in terms of Section 17(2A) (b) of the said Act.

(2.) The defendant tenant had been also depositing current rent in terms of second part of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. He had, however, deposit rent for October, 1979 on 23rd November, 1979. He deposited rent for November, 1979 on 13th January, 1980. The rent for May, 1980 was deposited on 17th June, 1080. But along with the said delayed deposit the defendant tenant did not apply for condonation of delay or for extension of time for depositing the said rent for months of October, 1979, November, 1979 and May, 1980.

(3.) On 12th March, 1982 the plaintiff landlord opposite parties had filed in the Trial Court an application under Section 17 ((3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for striking off the balance of the defendant tenant on the ground that he had failed to comply with the requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act. At that stage, on 17th June, 1982 the defendant for tenant petitioner filed in the Trial Court an application for treating the deposits for the months of October, 1979, November, 1979 and May, 1980 as valid deposits by extending the time and condoning the delay. In the first paragraph of the said petition which was described to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the tenant alleged that he was financially handicapped and as such he could not arrange for the money in order to deposit the rents for the said three months. In paragraph 8 of the said petition under Section 151 of the Code the defendant tenant claimed that because of bona fide reasons of his financial crisis be could not deposit in time. Therefore, necessary orders might be passed for treating the said deposit as valid. The learned Munsif upheld the objection of the plaintiff landlords and dismissed the defendant tenant's petition for condonation of delay and for extension of time for depositing the rent for the aforesaid three months. No order as yet had been made upon the plaintiff's application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved, by the order of rejection of his prayer for condonation of delay, the defendant petitioner moved a revisional application upon which the learned Single Judge had issued the present Rule. The Rule was referred to the Division Bench and the Division Bench in its turn has referred the same for disposal by a larger Bench.