SONODYNE TELEVISION CO LTD Vs. SUBRAMMANIYA SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application under section 115 CPC is directed against order No.44 dated 10.2.99 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No.2 of 1995, striking out the defendant against delivery of possession under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(2.) The suit was for eviction of a monthly premises tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, amongst others. The defendant petitioner filed an application under section 17(2) (2A) (2B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act without disputing either the relationship of landlord and tenant the rate of rent (Rs. 5000/- per month) and praying for determination of the rent in arrear. The trial Court held that the defendant was defaulter in payment of rent for 14 months from February, 1993 to October, 1993, for the months of July, 1994 to September, 1994, December 1995 and January 1996. The total arrear was thus determined at Rs. 73,000/- including a sum of Rs. 3000/- due by way of statutory interest. The trial Court by order No.17 dated 22.2.96 disposed of the defendant petitioner's application under section 17(2) (2A) (2B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act directing the defendant company to deposit the said amount of Rs. 73,000/- by 14 monthly instalments of Rs. 5000/- each beginning from March 1996 and another monthly instalment of Rs. 3000/- by the 15th of each month and also directed the defendant to deposit the current rent month by month. Admittedly the defendant did not pay the first instalment in March, 1996 as directed by the trial court's order. The defendant, however, started depositing the instalments from April, 1996 onwards and in all paid Rs. 45,000/- in nine monthly instalments from April, 1996 to December, 1996 towards the arrear rent. The defendant did not pay any current rent as contemplated under section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, following the disposal of the application under section 17 (2) (2A) (2B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The plaintiff came forward with an application under section 17(3) on 22.1.98. The defendant took several adjournments of the hearing of the said application under section 17(3) and its last prayer was rejected 1.9.98 and the trial court was pleased to pass an exparte order dated 1.9.98 striking out the defence under section 17(3). Against this exparte order the defendant petitioner moved the High Court in revision being C.O. No. 3045 of 1998 and His Lordship, Samaresh Banerjea, J by an order dated 24.12.98 held that the trial Court acted with material irregularity in not granting the adjournment on 1.9.98 and hearing the matter ex parte and in such view of the matter, the said order was set aside with a direction upon the trial court to hear out the application under section 17(3) afresh after hearing both parties and to dispose of the same within certain time from the date of communication of the order without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. After the matter came back to the trial Court, the defendant filed written objection on 9.2.99 against the application under section 17(3) alleging that it was trying heart and soul to improve its financial position and expressed its readiness to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two months towards the arrear rent and thereafter to pay month by month from March, 1999 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- towards arrears besides current rent. During the fresh hearing of the application under section 17(3) it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant persistently made either late deposits or did not at all make any deposits and that too without any valid and sufficient cause and that the plea of the defendant for detentions of time on the ground of financial stringency was not at all sufficient. Upon consideration of the record, the trial Court found that the defendant has not paid the arrears and current rent in compliance with the court's order in spite of getting chances and that the defendant was guilty of wilful laches in not making such deposits. In such view of the matter, the trial court was of the view that the defendant was not entitled to get any further tine for depositing the arrear and current rent and accordingly by its order dated 10.2.99, the trial Court allowed the plaintiff's application under section 17(3) and struck out the defence against delivery of possession.

(3.) Mr. Ashis Bagchi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged only one point in assailing the impugned order. It is submitted that the trial Court acted illegally in coming to the conclusion that there was wilful laches on the part of the petitioner in not depositing the arrears and current rent and that such a finding was based on surmise and conjecture and not borne out by the records of the case. Mr. Bagchi referred to paragraph 14 of the present revisional application in which the defendant petitioner has expressed its readiness to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within six weeks from the date of the order towards the arrear rent and also to clear up the arrears by making payments at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month in addition to payment of current monthly rent and submitted that this Court should give the defendant an opportunity even at this stage to pay the arrears and current rent in the manner suggested in the said paragraph.