Salil Kumar Datta, J. - (1.)This Rule is directed against the Order No. 28 dated April 2, 1970 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 649 of 1969. The plaintiff instituted a suit on May 15. 1969 for recovery of possession of the suit premises held by the defendant as a monthly tenant according to English calendar month at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- payable according to the month of the tenancy, on notice to quit. The ground for eviction was default in payment of rent, the rent being in arrears from Oct. 1968. Admittedly the tenancy was governed by the West Bengal Pre-mises Tenancy Act. 1956 hereinafter re-ferred to as the said Act.
(2.)The summons of the suit was duly served on May 30. 1969 and the defendant entered appearance on June 9 following, praying for time to file writ-ten statement for contesting the suit. On June 12. 1969. the defendant filed an application praying for permission to de-posit the rent for May 1969 as also cur-rent rents as they become due. On June 28, 1969, the defendant filed an application under Section 17 (2-A) (b) of the said Act. admitting that rent was in ar-rear from October 1968 to April 1969 and praying for leave to deposit arrears by easy instalments of Rs. 10/- per month as he was in distress being thrown out of employment. The defendant thereafter filed his written statement admitting the default and stated that in view of the deposits of current rent and of his ap-plication under Section 17 (2-A) (b) which was pending, he was entitled to protection against eviction. The plaintiff on the same day filed an objection to the said application which was taken up for hearing on September 12, 1969. The learned Judge on a consideration of the evidence and materials on record, determined the arrear rent to be Rs. 140/- and interest thereon Rs. 7.53, in ell Rs. 147-53 and the said amount was directed to be deposited by monthly instalments of Rs. 20/- with the current rent by the 15th of the succeeding month. The defendant was directed to produce challans in Court on 15th of every month. In default the order was to be revoked and penal con-sequences would follow.
(3.)As the challans were not produced, the plaintiff on December 12, 1969 filed an application under Section 17 (3) for striking out the defence. The application came up for hearing on March 4, 1970 when the defendant filed challans. It transpired therefrom that though the instalments as also the amounts payable for months of September and November 1969 were duly deposited in time, instalments as also the amounts for October and December 1969 were deposited out of the time. At that stage the defendant filed an application wherein he submitted that he could not get money from his employer nor arrange money from anywhere and that he was a poor man. Accordingly it was prayed that the court should condone the delay in depositing the rent. It may be noted that the instalment and amount for October 1969 were deposited on November 20. 1969 while the said amounts for December 1969 were deposited on February 4, 1970.