Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.4.87 passed by N.N. Bhattacharyya, Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, whereby and whereunder the said learned Court decreed the plaintiffs-respondents' suit. The plaintiffs filed the aforementioned suit, inter alia, on the ground of default, subletting and bonafide requirement. The suit was decreed ex parte. It appears from the evidence of the plaintiff No. I who examined himself as P.W. 1 that the defendant/appellant No. 1 was a tenant in respect of he suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 55/-. He did not pay rent since Baisakh 1384 B.S. It was also averred that the defendant had not been depositing the rent regularly. It was further stated that the defendant No. 2 was inducted as a sub-tenant by the defendant No. 1 wherefor no written or oral permission was taken by the defendant/appellant No. 1. It was, however, stated that the defendant No. 1 did not reside in the suit premises. Admittedly on the basis of the aforementioned evidence, an ex parte decree had been passed.
(2.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellants raised two contentions in support of this appeal. Firstly, he submitted that the impugned judgment dated 27.4.1987 although was rendered ex parte, the learned Judge was duty bound to assign reason, in support thereof, inasumch as, a decree has to be passed on one or other grounds enumerated in Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned Counsel further submits that although the defence of the defendants against delivery of possession was struck off by the order of the court, they were entitled to cross-examine P.W. 1.
(3.) Mr. Abu Sufian, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that not only the defendants' defence against delivery of possession was struck off owing to non-compliance of Section 17(2) of the said Act but also the plaintiff in his evidence stated that the tenanted premises has been sublet in favour of third party without obtaining his consent. The learned counsel has referred to order No. 61 dated 27.4.87 in this connection. From a perusal of the order No. 46 dated 12.7.88 it appears that it was conceded on behalf of the defendant that the challen showing deposit of rent had not been filed despite the order passed by the learned trial Judge in terms of Section 17(2) of the said Act. It appears from the records that the appellant has also filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for payment of appears rent. By order dated 3.9.86 the said application was rejected.;