S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.) The tenant-defendant is the Appellant. An exparte decree dated 29.12.96 for eviction of the defendant was passed against him, inter alia, on the ground that despite an order made under section 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act wherein the petitioner was found to be a defaulter to the extent of a sum of Rs. 14,70,250/- and despite the fact that in a revision application marked as C.O.No. 1286(W) of 1995, this Court by an order dated 19.2.96 directed the petitioner to pay half of the amount within six months from the date thereof and the remaining half in 10 equal monthly installments after payment of the first installment; failed and/or neglected to pay the same. The suit was fixed for ex parte hearing. An application had been filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 30th September, 1996 praying for recalling the order fixing the suit for exparte hearing dated 19.9.96 however, was rejected by the learned trial Court, stating :- "A perusal of the case record shows that on 14.8.96 this Court observed: "Just because a revision under section 115 of the CPC is allowed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, this does not confer any right on the defendant to remain absent on the date fixed for further hearing of the suit. Such conduct should be discouraged. Otherwise no suit can be disposed of expeditiously. However, for the ends of justice the defendant is allowed to contest the suit, yet in order to discourage repetition of such conduct in future, the defendant is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 300/- to the plaintiff on account of delay occasioned in the hearing of the suit on account of their default. The petition in question is disposed of accordingly on contest. In view of the aforesaid clear direction of the Court a similar plea for condonation for a repeated default if allowed would amount to travesty of justice. The conduct of the defendant appears to be deliberate and motivated so that the final disposal of the suit may be delayed as far as possible. As such the petition dated 30.9.96 under section. 151 CPC is rejected on contest without cost."
(2.) Before coming to the merit of the matter, the fact of the case may be noticed.
(3.) By an agreement in writing the appellant was inducted in the suit premises on leave and license basis in respect of flat No. 58 of Tivoli Court at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,981.25 p. The rent was increased from the month of March 1986 to Rs. 10,000/- per month; from 1st March, 1987 to Rs. 12,000/- and from 1st March, 1988 to Rs. 13,500/- per month. The defendant became a defaulter. He paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and issued 4 cheques amounting to Rs. 4,80,500/- in total which were dishonoured. He allegedly agreed to vacate the flat by February, 1989. The arrears dues regarding license fee rose to the extent of Rs. 4,26,500/- as had been calculated by the landlord in the following manner :- JUDGEMENT_331_CALLT3_2000Html1.htm;