NAGENDRA BALA HORE Vs. ISWAR DAKHINA KALIMATA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was obtained by the petitioners who are tenants against an order dated 1st February 1949 passed by Mr. M Mukherji, learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, 6th Bench, rejecting an application under Section 18, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act (XXXVIII [38] of 1948).

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor was a tenant in respect of premises No. 38/4B Baghbazar Street. The landlord served a notice to quit under Section 106 T. P. Act, and started proceedings under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act on the ground of default. The petitioners filed written statements disputing the fact that they were defaulters. On 24th August 1948 an order was made under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. It appears that the petitioners deposited the arrears up to July 1948. It is alleged that since the passing of the order under Section 41 they are depositing rent before the Rent Controller. On 1st December 1948 the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act (XXXVIII [38] of 1948) came into force. On 7th January 1949 the petitioners made an application under Section 18 of the said Act. It is alleged by the petitioners that they tendered the costs of the ejectment proceedings to the landlord on 27th December 1948 and on the refusal by the landlord to accept the same deposited the amount in Court on 14th January 1949. On 1st February 1949 the learned Small Cause Court Judge rejected their application under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the costs were not deposited within time. No finding was arrived at as regards the allegation of tender. The tenants moved this Court and obtained this Rule.

(3.) Mr. Diptendra Mohan Ghose appearing for the petitioners contended that the tender on 27th December 1948 followed by a deposit on 14th January 1949 was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 12 (1) (b) of the said Act. Mr. Apurba Charan Mukherji appearing for the opposite party contended that the aforesaid tender, even if true, was not sufficient compliance with the statute. He also contended that Section 18, West Bangal Premises Rent Control Act cannot be invoked by the petitioners. He also contended that interest on arrears of rent was not paid as required by Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act.