Decided on December 21,1995

Gobinda Charan Biswas Appellant
BALARAM DEY Respondents


S.NARAYAN,J. - (1.)THIS application under Section 115 of the C.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 31.3.94 passed by Shri R.K. Mitra, Judge, 4th Bench of the City Civil court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 886 of 1986 whereby, the petitions dated 10.2.1987 of the Defendant/Petitioner filed under Sections 17(1), 17(2) and (2a) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 were rejected as time barred.
(2.)THE factual score depicts that the plaintiffs/O.Ps. filed a suit being Ejectment Suit No. 886 of 1986 against the Defendant/Petitioner for eviction from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and also of reasonable requirement. Summons were issue in the Suit. Some time, thereafter the defendant/petitioner entered into appearance on 10.2.87 and filed three applications - one under Section 17(1), the other under Section 17(2) and yet another under Section 17(2a)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). While submitting these petitions the defendant/petitioner asserted that summons in the suit were served upon him by affixing the same on the door of his house as late as on 12.1.87 and, accordingly, his aforesaid petitions were filed within one month of the date of service of summons. On the other side, the Plaintiffs/O.Ps. contended that there was service of summons by registered post with A.D. as early as on 22.12.86 i.e. more than one month prior to the filing of the aforesaid petitions.
The law as laid down in Section 17(1) of the Act was quite clear and explicit on the point that a petition under Section 17(2) and (2a)(b) must be filed within one month from the service of summons. This provision admits of no exception in itself and that being as such, it was only on the factual score that a decision was required to be taken. It may be added here that the Defendant/Petitioner solely banked upon acceptance of his contention that the summons were served only on 12.1.87 and, therefore, his petitions were not at all time barred.

(3.)THE learned Court below has gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on the either side and, after careful consideration of the pros and cons of the matter, he accepted the earlier mode of service of summons i.e. by way of Registered Post with A.D. as valid.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.