- (1.)The appellants were admittedly tenants under the respondents in respect of the suit premises at a rent of Rs. 50/- (fifty) per month. It is also undisputed that previously the landlord respondents had instituted an ejectment suit against them on the ground of default in payment of rent. By complying with the relevant sub-section of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act the defendant-appellants were given protection from against eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent in terms of Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
(2.)The plaintiff-respondent instituted the instant ejectment suit of which this appeal arises on the allegation that the defendants had again committed default since January 1970 and, therefore, they were liable to be ejected under Section 13(1)(i) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The defendants had made an application under Section 17(2A) of the Act in the trial Court. They had made also an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for directing correction of certain errors which had crept in some of the Rent Control challans by which the defendants had been depositing rent in the office of the Rent Controller. While the Court below had ultimately allowed the application under Section 17(2A) it had rejected the said application of the defendants under Section 151 of the Code. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit for ejectment against the defendant-appellants under Section 13(1)(i) holding that under proviso to sub-section 4 of Section 17 of the Act in the instant second suit for ejectment the defendants were no longer entitled to the benefit of protection against ejectment on the ground of default.
(3.)In our view, the learned Judge of the Court below has rightly held that the deposits made by the defendant-tenant, either with wrong surname of the defendant No. 2 or with incorrect description of the tenancy held by them, were invalid and did not amount to valid payment of rent within the meaning of Section 22(2) of the West Bengal Tenancy Act. In view of the present proviso to sub-section 4 of Section 17 of the Act the defendant tenants had forfeited their right to obtain relief against ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. The application under Section 151 of the Code made by the defendant before the trial Court for correction of the errors made by them in making deposits in the office of the Rent Controller was clearly misconceived and was rightly rejected. It is not within the scope of this appeal to decide whether the Rent Controller himself could have allowed the defendant-tenants application, if made, for correction of the errors in the Rent Control challans because no such application was made before the office of the Rent Controller. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Division Bench in Manik Chand Durgaprosad and others v. Bulakidas Baheti, 1969 AIR(Cal) 104 which has inter alia laid down that neither the Deputy Registrar nor the Controller can make corrections in the challan and vary the appropriation of rent to a month other than what is mentioned in the application. The Division Bench decision being binding upon us we respectfully follow the same.