- (1.) This is a revisional application at the instance of the defendant-petitioners and is directed against an order dated March 25, 1982 passed in Ejectment Suit No. 736 of 1978 of the 3rd Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The application is being heard on notice to and upon contest by plaintiff-opposite-parties. The suit is for eviction of the tenant on the ground for default in the payment of rent and making unauthorised construction of a puca nature resulting in material deterioration of the premises in suit. The petitioners, upon , service of summons entered appearance and filed an application under section 17(2A) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act praying for determination of the amount of arrears of rent and for permitting them to deposit the arrears in instalments. The Court by an order dated January 18,1979, determined the arrears at Rs- 2,510/- inclusive of interest and directed the same to be paid by monthly instalments of Rs. 200/- commencing from March, 1979. The current rent at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month was to be paid along with the instalments.
(2.) Now the petitioners' case is that the landlord-opposite-party filed an application under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for striking out the defence of the petitioners although the petitioner had been admittedly complying with the order of the Court by making over the current rent and the instalments with the Advocate's clerk for being deposited in Court. After the filing of the application under section 17(3) the petitioners upon enquiry found out that the current rent for the months of April to September, 1979, that 4th to 8th instalments though deposited in time contained some mistakes in the chalans. There was, however, no mistake with regard to the names of the parties, the Bench in which the suit was pending, the number of the suit but there was a mistake with regard to the year of the suit. It was Suit No. 736 of 1978 but in the chalans it was wrongly written as 736 of 1979. Having detected this mistake the petitioner filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for correction of the chalans and for treating the deposits as being made in the particular suit. By the order impugned the learned Judge felt that the Court was not the appropriate authority to issue orders for correction of the chalans nor could the Court treat the deposits as having been made in the Suit No. 736 of 1978 when in fact the number of the suit as mentioned in the chalans is 736 of 1979. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge rejected the application and hence the present revisional application.
(3.) There is no dispute with regard to the facts. There is no dispute that the deposits were made in time. Mr. Chatterjee. the learned Counsel, even conceded that on the face of the records, it could not be said that there was any mala fides in so far as the wrong entry of the year of the suit is concerned but he contended that the Court could not correct the chalans nochas the Court any power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to treat the deposits as having been made in the Suit No. 736 of 1978. It is however, nobody's contention that the deposits were intended for another suit, further it is nobody's case that there is a suit between the same parties numbered as 736 of 1979. It is apparent therefore that the mistake with regard to the year was a bona fide mistake. Even then, when entering into the question whether the Court can now correct the chalans, it may be pointed out that the Court while passing the chalans had a duty to see that it was in form. The Ministerial Officer-in-Charge has a duty to ascertain by reference to the records of the case that the amount tendered is correct and is due, from the person on whose account it is tendered to the person to whom it is stated to be payable and after correcting the chalans, if necessary, the Chief Ministerial Officer is to sign the relevant part of the chalan. In the instant case, it is clear that the Ministerial Officer-in-Charge failed in the in the discharge of his duties in ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the particulars furnished in the chalans. Had he scrutinised the papers in appropriate time the mistake would have appeared then and there and the chajans could have been corrected. Failure and lapse on the part of the Court's Officer cannot, in my view, prejudice the case of the petitioners when it could not be shown that the petitioners were acting with a mala fide intention in giving a wrong year of the suit.;