MAHANANDA DUTT AND CO P LTD Vs. UMA CHARAN LAW
LAWS(CAL)-1963-9-5
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 13,1963

MAHANANDA DUTT AND CO P LTD Appellant
VERSUS
UMA CHARAN LAW Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

TARAK NATH GUPTA V. LT. COL. K. K. CHATTERJEE [REFERRED TO]
SK. FAZLUDDIN V. SM. ZUBEIDA KHANAM [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH ROY VS. ANNAPURNA ROY [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PARAMESWARI DEVI VS. NANDLAL SARAF [LAWS(CAL)-1967-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRANATH BHUNIA VS. SABITA GIRI & ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2018-5-43] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS Rule is directed against an order of the court below, striking out the petitioner's defence in the instant suit for ejectment under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The circumstances under which this Rule came to be issued are as follows:
(2.)THE opposite parties, as landlords, instituted the present suit for ejectment against the petitioner tenant in respect of the suit premises No, 1531, Cotton Street, Calcutta. The tenancy ran according to the Bengali calendar month and carried a rental of Rs, 231/ - per month. The suit, which was numbered as Ejectment Suit No. 2068 of 1958, was instituted in the local City Civil Court on December 4, 1958. The notice of ejectment was stated to have been duly served and the ground, taken under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for ejectment, was, inter alia, violation of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The landlord's allegation was that the tenant had pulled down and damaged the building and also erected permanent structures, thereby contravening the above provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and bringing the instant case within the mischief of section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The notice of ejectment is dated 24th Pous, 1362 B. S. =january 9, 1956, and its period expired with the expiry of Magh, 1362 B. S. , corresponding to February 13, 1956. The summons of the suit appears to have been served on January 14, 1959, and, on the 30th next, the defendant entered appearance and he filed his written statement on February 21, 1959. The present application under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, came to be filed by the landlords opposite parties on May 7, 1959, and, in it, the allegation was that, after the summons had been served, there was no deposit in court or payment to the landlords, as required by section 17 (1) of the above Act. To this application, the petitioner filed his first objection on June 23, 1959, and, on the date of hearing, namely, September 4, 1959, additional objections were filed by the petitioner. It appears that the rents for the four months of Pous, Magh, Falgoon and Chaitra, 1365 B. S. , were deposited by the petitioner with the Rent Controller on january 17, 1959, February 18, 1959, March 17, 1959, and April 20, 1959, respectively. The petitioner again deposited the rents for Magh, Falgoon and Chaitra, 1365 B. S. in court on April 28, 1959, with the permission of the court but at His risk. All subsequent rents appear to have been deposited in court,
(3.)THE application under sec. 17 (3) was heard on September 4, 1959, and it was allowed by the trial court's order, dated September 14, 1959, and the petitioner's written statement was struck out in terms of that order. Thereafter, on September 24 following, the present Rule was obtained by the petitioner. In the trial court, it appears, the point, that was considered in the order, allowing the landlords opposite parties' application under sec. 17 (3), was whether the deposits with the Rent Controller, after service of the summons of the suit, were good deposits or valid payments under sec. 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The learned trial Judge held that these deposits, however valid for other purposes, would not be valid or effective for the purpose of the above section and, accordingly, were ineffectual to prevent the striking out of the petitioner's written statement. The Rule, that was issued by this court, was expressly issued on two grounds, Grounds Nos. IV and V, of the petition, which were in these terms:
"iv. For that the learned Judge failed to consider the deposits made in court as also the objections raised in the petition dated 4. 9. 59. V. For that the learned Judge should have taken into consideration the sum of 4201- which was in deposit with the plaintiffs. "



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.