Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) In this revisional application, the defendants/ tenants assail an order dated 20th December, 2014 passed by the learned Trial Court on an application made by the plaintiffs/landlords under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. By the order impugned, the learned Judge struck off the defence of the defendants/present petitioners. The ground, on which the defence was struck off, was admitted default in payment of rent by the defendants/petitioners. Being aggrieved, the defendants are before this Court by way of this revisional application.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no real default on the part of the defendants. There might have been a few days delay in depositing rent. However, such delay has been condoned and hence, such deposits have been regularised. There was no ground for striking off the defence of the defendants. Section 17(3) of 1956 Act is not a mandatory provision, but only a directory one. In this connection, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. B.P.Khemka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Birendra Kumar, 1987 AIR(SC) 1010 and a decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Shaw Vs. Kanailal Pakhira, 1988 1 CalHN 31. Learned counsel also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramendra Krishna Bose Vs. Sm. Manjushree Bhattacharya,1978 1 CrLJ 393 in support of his submission that in exercise of inherent power, the Court can condone the delay in deposit of rent by a tenant.
(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the order impugned. There is no illegality in the order. The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an Appellate Court. No ground has been made out for interference with the order impugned. He further submits that the suit has been decreed not only on the ground of default in payment of rent, but also on five other grounds including illegal demolition of partition wall in the suit premises, illegal subletting and other acts of waste and negligence. The defendants have preferred an appeal which is pending before the first Appellate Court. However, there is no order of stay since the defendants failed to deposit the amount that they were directed to deposit by the first Appellate Court. Mr. Dutta submitted that at this stage, no interference by this Court is warranted.;