SM SUSAMA SINHA Vs. KAMALA BALA DUTT
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sm Susama Sinha
Kamala Bala Dutt
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This Rule arises out of a proceeding under Section 17(5) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
(2.) The Petitioner before me was the tenant in respect of the suit premises. In the suit for ejectment, which was brought by the landlord opposite party against the present Petitioner, an application was made by the said Plaintiff for an order under Section 17(3) of the above Act. That application appears to have been dismissed by the learned trial Judge on January 3, 1958, upon the finding, -and that was the admitted position in the case,-that all rents up to date had been duly deposited in time with the Rent Controller. The Plaintiff's contention that the deposit with the Rent Controller after service of summons of the suit could not be accepted as valid deposit was rejected by the court on that occasion and his application under Section 17(3) was eventually dismissed, as aforesaid.
(3.) It is to be noted that, at or about the time, when the above order was passed by the trial court, one, at least, of the prevailing rulings on the point in dispute, was the decision of Renupada Mukherjee, J. in the case of Gokul Bala Roy v. Sarat Chandra Ghosal, 0 61 CalWN 890and the order of the trial court, rejecting the. Plaintiff's application under Section 17(3) as aforesaid, was in full conformity with the said decision. True, no doubt, a different view had also been taken by this Court, by another; learned Judge (Guha Ray, J.) sitting singly, in the case of Ganesh Chandra Ganguly v. Mahabir Prasad, 0 61 CalWN 893, which, later on was preferred by the Division Bench in the case of Abdul Majid v. Dr. Samiruddin, 0 62 CalWN 555, and on which, that Bench put its final seal of approval. That, however, as I shall presently show, does not and cannot effect the instant case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.