PANCHANAN CHAKRAVARTI Vs. HARISATYA BHATTACHARYYA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of Section 18, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, for the purpose of rescission or variation of a decree for ejectment passed against him in Title Suit No. 125 of 1948 in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Howrah. The petitioner was a tenant under the opposite party with respect to a portion of holding no. 6, Kailash Basu 4th Bye Lane, Ramkrishnapur, at a monthly rental of Rs. 15-8-0 only. The suit for ejectment was instituted on 20th September 1947 on the allegation that the tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit served in accordance with law. There was also a claim for Rs. 10 8 0 said to be the outstanding due on account of rent and a claim for mesne profits. It was said that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent prior to the date of suit and so was not entitled to get the benefit of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, which was then in force. The Court accepted the story of default, found that the tenancy had been properly terminated and gave the plaintiff a decree for ejectment of the defendant petitioner. The decree was passed on 7th September 1948. On 22nd December 1948, the petitioner filed an application before the Court praying foe a rescission of the decree for ejectment. It was stated therein that during the pendency of the suit the petitioner had been regularly depositing the due rent every month in the Bent Controller's Court in accordance with the provisions of law and that in fact, rent due up to the month of October 1948 had been deposited in the Rent Controller's Court. It was further stated that the rent for the month of November 1948 and for the month of December up to the date of petition together with costs had also been put in by him on that date, namely 22nd December 1948. He claimed that this was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 12 (1)(b), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act and so in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act he was liable to have the decree rescinded.

(2.) In the objection which was filed by the present opposite party it was merely stated that the petitioner was not entitled to have the decree rescinded; but nothing was said about the petitioner's statement in the petition as regards the deposit of rent in accordance with law in the Bent Controller's Court up to the month of October 1918.

(3.) The learned Munsiff dismissed this application on two grounds. His first ground was that the deposit had not been made in accordance with law inasmuch as it had been made in Court which is not provided for in the Act. His second ground was that in any case there could not be any application of Section 18 of the Act to the facts of this case inasmuch as "the post-Act deposit cannot have any retrospective effect so as to relate back and undo the pre-Act defaulting status and cure this initial vice of default which has in fact been adjudged by the Court and consequent on which the decree in question had to be passed."