HIRENDRA NATH MALLICK AND OTHER Vs. RAM RATAN DEY
LAWS(CAL)-1976-9-43
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 16,1976

HIRENDRA NATH MALLICK AND OTHER Appellant
VERSUS
RAM RATAN DEY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Bhattdcharya, J. - (1.)These two revisional applications under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been heard together as the common, question of law is involved under similar circumstances.
(2.)The relevant facts may he briefly stated. The opposite party, Ram Ratan De in both the applications filed two separate suits for ejectment of his tenants under the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, in respect of two different portions of the same house. In one case Hirendra Nath Mallick was the defendant tenant and in another case Jatindra Nath Sen was the defendant. In the said two suits the defendants appeared duly on receipt of the summons and filed application under Sec. 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for being allowed to deposit the rental amounts as required under Sec. 17(1). In the application ha admitted some arrears. The learned Munsif of the original court in both the suits fixed dates for hearing of the application and no order was passed allowing or permitting the defendants to make deposit under S-17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act although the period required under Sec. 17(1) expired. It appears further from the order-sheet, may be being impatient and apprehending difficulties, the defendants filed challans for the deposit of the amounts and ultimately the Court allowed the defendants to make deposit at their own risk and the defendants made the deposits. Thereafter the application under Sec. 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act filed by the defendants came up for hearing and it was held by the learned Munsif that the said application was not maintainable because the defendants did not make deposit within the time mentioned under Sec. 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Against that order the defendants have come up with the revisional applications challenging the propriety and legality of the order in question.
(3.)I heard Mr. Roy led by Mr. Panda for the petitioners in both the revisional applications and Mr. Sahu for the landlord-opposite party.
;


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