Raghunath Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application is directed against the order No. 25 dated 13.07.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judge, SCC Court at Calcutta in ejectment suit No. 191 of 2006 whereby learned Trial Court rejected the application dated 11.12.2008 filed by the substituted defendant No. 1(a) and 1(b) on the ground stated in the order.
(2.) HEARD learned Lawyer for the both side. It appears that plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for ejectment No. 191 of 2006 against Ramavatar Jalan, Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner for eviction on the ground stated in the plaint. Said Ramavatar Jalan died intestate on 17.10.2007. after the demise of Ramavatar during the pendency of the suit his legal heir was substituted as defendant No. 1(a) and 1(b) and filed written statement after supplying copy to the other side. Thereafter substituted defendant filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act filed by the substituted defendant No. 1(a) and 1(b) praying for passing an order to determine as to whether they have defaulted in payment of rent and after such ejectment to permit them to deposit the arrear rent, if any, by monthly installment on the ground stated therein. At the time of hearing learned lawyer on behalf of the plaintiff submitted before this Court that the earlier instant application was filed under Section 7(2) of the Act and same has already been disposed of with certain findings. It is further pointed out by the learned lawyer for the plaintiff that said defendant has failed to comply the order so plaintiff has taken appropriate step and on hearing the learned Court below has struck off the defence against the delivery of possession. Thereafter the original tenant died and present defendant were substituted. So the moot question is whether the present defendant has the legal right to filed the instant suit. It was held in several decisions that the original tenant filed an application under Section 17(2) and section 17(2A) before the Court in a suit for eviction and the same was dismissed. Thereafter his defence against delivery of possession had been struck out. He died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by his legal representative. They file an application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the Act. The question before the high Court was whether those substituted defendants could file a fresh application after the application filed by the original tenant had been rejected and defendce had been struck out. It has been held by Calcutta High Court that they cannot be permitted to file an independent application under Section 17(2) and Section 17(2A) beyond the scope of the defence of the original defendant which had already been struck out and also beyond the period of limitation and they cannot put forward an independent defence at variance with the defence set out by the original defendant had already been struck out.
(3.) NOW both side has relied upon several decisions. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has relied upon his decision reported in 78 CWN 208, 2002 SAR 446, AIR 1987 SC 1010 and 2004 (2) CLJ 109. I have perused all the decisions carefully and in my humble opinion those reported decisions are not applicable in the instant suit. After careful scrutiny of the Act it appears that there cannot be any successive application for extension of time for the purpose of making payment of arrears of rent or installment. Moreover, no such application can be entertained by the Court if made beyond the period of one month. In the instant case admittedly original defendant filed necessary application within the prescribed period of time and same was disposed of accordingly. No revisional application was preferred against the order passed in respect of that application as the said application has already been disposed of. in my humble opinion no further application on the self same issue can be entertained again and again which in my opinion the whole purpose of the act would be frustrated. Moreover, it is needless to mention that the substituted defendant steps into show of the original defendant and as a result them must abide by the decision of the suit. So the present application filed by the defendant is not maintainable. In view of aforesaid discussion I do not find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below. Thus the Civil Revision being No. 2524 of 2009 stand dismissed on contest but without cost in the circumstances. Urgent phostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.;