RABIN ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. DANIEL GOMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Re visional application is directed against an order dated 8th December, 1986 passed by Sri a. K. Dutta, learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 421 of 1975. The defendants are the petitioners. By the impugned order, the learned Judge rejected the defendants application under Section 17 (2a) (b) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, praying, inter alia, for installments.

(2.) ON behalf of the defendants/petitioners, it has been urged, by mr. Mrinal Kanti Das, that the learned Judge rejected the application as not maintainable only for default of the defendants/petitioners in making deposit of current rent month by month in terms of the latter part of Sub-section 1 of Section 17 of the said Act, overlooking the pendency of the application under Section 17 (2a) (b) and overlooking also the legal position that till the disposal of such application the defendants had no obligation to comply with any part of Section 17 (1)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. According to Mr. Das the proviso to Section 17 (2a) (b) as also the non obstante clause with which the said sub-section (2a) commences unequivocally confirm the aforesaid legal position by expressly making the current rents up to month previous to that in which the order in terms of the said sub-section is passed a part of the 'sum' which the court may permit to be paid by instalments notwithstanding the prayer for instalments having been restricted to the months of November 1983 - February 1985. In consequence, as urged, the defendants had no liability to deposit till the disposal of the said application under Section 17 (2a) (1)of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(3.) MR. Monoranjan Das, appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties, has contested the propriety and correctness of the submission made on behalf of the defendants-petitioners. He has relied upon the averments in the application under Section 17 (2a) (b) as referred to above to show that the defendants restricted the scope of the relief to be granted by Court to the arrears relating to the months of november, 1983 to February, 1985 and in that situation there was no reason for them for non compliance with the requirements of Section 17 (1)of the aforesaid Act which is mandatory in nature. Mr. Monoranjan das has, on the aforesaid basis, submitted that the court below was fully justified in refusing to entertain the application of the defendants petitioners and rejecting the same by the impugned order.