PRAVA SUNDARI DEBI Vs. PRATAP CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point raised by the appellant is whether an application under section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 can be disposed of on compromise between the parties and if any breach is committed of the terms of the compromise "whether that would amount to default and in that event whether the court can take action under section 17(3) of the Act by striking out the defence against delivery of possession".

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows :

(3.) Mr. Pramatha Mitra, learned Advocate, however, submitted that whether an application u/s 17(2) can be disposed of in terms of compromise is a question of jurisdiction and he submits that His Lordship Mr. Justice R. Bhattacharya acted beyond his powers in holding that an order u/s 17(2) could be made in terms of compromise between the parties to the suit and that further. His Lordship Mr. Justice Bhattacharya acted beyond jurisdiction in holding that since the terms of compromise had been violated the defence of the appellant against delivery of possession can be struck-off. Accordingly the judgment of His Lordship Mr. Justice Bhattacharya being without jurisdiction is null and void and can be interfered with by me although I have only co-ordinate jurisdiction with His Lordship. This point raised in this appeal has been specifically decided by His Lordship by finding fa) that the order u/s 17(2) was a valid order based on terms of compromise between the parties, (b) Violation of the terms of compromise would entitle the learned Munsif to pass an order u/s 17(3) of the Act. On the basis of this decision of His Lordship the learned Munsif struck off the defence of the appellant against delivery of possession and decreed the eviction suit. On appeal the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif was affirmed. This decision by his Lordship Mr. Justice Bhattacharya is binding upon me. Since no appeal was preferred against the same, it has become final and (he same question cannot be re-agitated in this Second Appeal.