Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order no.5 dated December 3, 2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Civil Revision Case No.71 of 2003 thereby affirming the order dated February 28, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Seventh Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.128 of 1994.
(2.) THE short fact is that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party instituted a suit for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in suit on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. In that suit, the defendants/petitioners herein entered appearance and they are contesting the said suit. THEy filed an application under Section 17(2) & (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for determination of arrears of rent, if any and for instalment. That application was disposed of by an order dated July 5, 1999 directing the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent as well as current rent. THEy did not comply with such directions and for that reason, the opposite party filed an application under Section 17(3) of the 1956 Act and that was allowed for non-compliance of the order passed on the petition under Section 17(2) of the 1956 Act. THE learned Trial Judge has also rejected the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of the delay. A revisional application was preferred against the said order of the learned Trial Judge before the learned District Judge and then the learned District Judge rejected the said revisional application holding that there was no ground for interference with the order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record as well as the written argument submitted by the petitioner, I find that it is a case of gross negligence on the part of the petitioners. The rent for the premises was at the rate of Rs.25/- per month according to Bengali calendar month beside other nominal charge for electricity, etc. The suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. The petitioners filed an application under Section 17(2) & (2A) of the 1956 Act. That application was disposed of on July 5, 1999 directing the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent by instalments and also to pay the current rent.
(3.) BUT, surprisingly the first instalment of Rs.435/- along with current rent for the month of Asharh, 1406 B.S. to Kartick 1406 B.S. at the rate of Rs.25/- per month totaling Rs.560/- was paid on December 14, 1999. Such belated payment of instalment and the payment of current rent for five months at a time instead of monthly payment within the period as ordered, is not permissible. The first deposit is invalid. The subsequent deposits by instalments have been made thereafter month by month along with the current rent. When the application under Section 17(3) came for hearing before the learned Trial Judge, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for condonation of the delay. The Court held that it is an admitted position that the defendants failed to pay the deposit as per directions passed in the order on the petition under Section 17(2) & (2A) of the 1956 Act.;