(1.) THE present Rule arises out of a petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the present petitioner-defendant was inducted as tenant by opposite party-petitioner in respect of the disputed premises, the month of tenancy being from the 20th of month upto the 19th of the month following. The petitioner-defendant contends that as per written instructions of the opposite party-plaintiff he tendered rent to one Amalendu Dey from 20.11.1971 to 19.10.1973 personally and thereafter by Money Order upto 19.1.1974. On refusal of both Amalendu Dey and the opposite party-defendant to accept the rent thereafter the petitioner-defendant deposited rent with the Rent Controller upto February, 1977. Thereafter, the opposite party plaintiff instituted Ejectment Suit No. 41 of 1977 for eviction of the petitioner-defendant from disputed premises after service of a notice to quit. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. The opposite party plaintiff having prayed for striking out the defence of the petitioner-defendant against delivery of possession by filing a petition under Section 17(3) of the W B Premises Tenancy Act, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Section 17(2) of the said Act suggesting that the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the opposite party plaintiff and himself be decided first and denying that any amount was due from him as rent.
(3.) DID the learned Munsif commit any mistake by passing the impugned order ? It appears from the case records that whereas the impugned order was passed on 20.7.1983 the petitioner-defendant deposited the rent for the period from 20.7.1982 to 19.8.1983 by a challan dated 16.8.1983. Vide order No. 95 passed by the learned Munsif on 16.8.1983. It is pretty clear that the learned Munsif made no mistake by finding on 20.7.1983 that the petitioner-defendant had not deposited any rent after 13.7.1982. It must be held therefore, that the learned Munsif did not act in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity by striking out the defence of the petitioner-defendant against delivery of possession. The present revisional application is bound to fail.