- (1.) This appeal is by the Defendant and it arises out of a suit for ejectment and it is directed against the decree for ejectment passed ex parte against the Defendant after striking out his defence under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
(2.) The suit was instituted on February 22, 1960. There was a notice of ejectment to the validity of which some objection was taken, but in the view, which we are taking, it will not be necessary for us to make any pronouncement with regard to the said objection.
(3.) It appears that, after entering appearance, the Defendant applied for an order under Section 17(2), raising a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by him, his contention being that it was Rs. 50 per month and not Rs. 55 per month, as untruly alleged by the Plaintiff. To this application there was an objection filed by the Plaintiff and the matter was taken up for consideration and decided by the Court below by its order dated October 7, 1961. In that order the learned trial Judge accepted the defence contention that the rent of the disputed premises was Rs. 50 per month and rejected the Plaintiff's contention to the contrary, namely, that it was Rs. 55 per month. At the same time, the learned trial Judge did not allow the set-off claimed by the Defendant towards rents and in the concluding part of his order the learned trial Judge observed: It is not in dispute that rent of the premises has been in arrears since Falgoon 1365 B.S. The Defendant, thus, is liable to deposit in Court the arrears of rent upto date at the rate of Rs. 50 per month from Falgoon 1365 till Bhadra 1368 B.S., that is, a period of 31 months and the Defendant is permitted to deposit in Court within 30 days of this date a sum of Rs. 1,550 as rent in arrears. This was in addition to the direction made in that order for deposit of current rents month by month within the 15th of the month following as required by the statute. The order then concluded with a default clause: 'In default, the mischief of Sub-Section 3 of the Section 17 would be attracted to the case'.;