S.K.Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) This Rule was obtained by the tenant defendant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, striking out the defence of the defendant against delivery of possession under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff opposite party.
(2.) The suit was instituted on July 16, 1973 on the allegation that the petitioner had failed and neglected to pay rent since June, 1970. The writ of summons was served in the suit upon the petitioner on June 3, 1974 and on July 17, 1974, the petitioner filed an application under Section 17 (2) of the Act. The said application was dismissed by the Court on September 4, 1974 and exactly a month thereafter the opposite party filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the Act, out of which the present Rule arises.
(3.) Before the learned Chief Judge, the petitioner company contended that they were not defaulters inasmuch as they had discharged their liability in so far as the opposite party's claim is concerned, pursuant to a notice issued by the income-tax authorities under Section 226 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned Chief Judge on a consideration of the materials placed before him came to the conclusion that the petitioners were defaulters inasmuch as they had not deposited the statutory interest due to the landlord in accordance with the provision of the Act with the income-tax authorities and the petitioners were also defaulters at least in respect of the months of June and July, 1970. The learned Chief Judge, further, held that the current rents have not also been deposited by the defendant and in view of the decision reported in the case of Hanuman Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Dhanuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. ((1975) 79 Cal WN 88) came to the conclusion that the defendant did hot comply with the requirement of Section 17 (1) or (2) of the Act and accordingly allowed the opposite party's application and struck out the defence of the petitioner. It is against this order the petitioner moved this Court and obtained this Rule.;