AMIYA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY
LAWS(CAL)-1976-4-28
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 26,1976

Amiya Kumar Chakraborty Appellant
VERSUS
SATYENDRA KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY Respondents




JUDGEMENT

AMITABHA DUTTA, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal by the defendant from an appellate decree of reversal and it arises out of a suit for ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent at Rs. 50/- per month according to English Calendar month from June, 1970 and reasonable requirement of the suit premises for the plaintiff's own use and occupation as owner after service of a notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, (hereinafter called the Act) requiring the defendant to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of November, 1970. The suit was instituted on 16.2.1971.
(2.)BOTH the courts below have concurrently found that a valid notice under Section 13(6) of the Act had been served on the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff prior to the institution of the suit and that the plaintiff has failed to prove reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his own occupation. The letter finding has not been challenged on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent before this Court.
It is not disputed that the defendant deposited rent for June, July and August, 1970 in the office of the Rent Controller by one Challan (Ext. 'C-7') on 5.10.1970 and in view of Section 22(1) of the Act the rent for the aforesaid three months was not validly deposited for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i) o the Act which makes default in payment of rent for two months within a period of 12 months a ground for ejectment of the tenant. A tenant is liable to be evicted on such ground if he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 17(4) of the Act which provides that if a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of Section 17 no decree or order for eviction on the ground of default shall be passed against him. In the present case the defendant appeared in the suit on receipt of summons sent by registered post and made an application on 11.5.1971. The contents of the said application are as follows :-

"Application for permission" "The applicant Sri Amiya Kumar Chakraborty submits that the suit is fixed on this date. The registered summons has been received. The rent of the suit premises has already been deposited with the Rent Controller i.e. rent for the period upto March, 1977 has been deposited in R.C. Case No. 101 of 1970 with the Rent Controller, Alipore. Permission for deposit of rent for April, 1971 may now be granted."
The learned Munsif granted the prayer for permission to deposit the rent for April, 1971 at the entire risk of the defendant by his order No. 4 dated 11.5.1971.
(3.)THE learned Munsif after hearing the suit on evidence dismissed it as according to him the defendant not being a defaulter for four consecutive months no decree for eviction could be passed. The suit was dismissed on 15.12.1973.
;


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