BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a judgment debtor in a suit for eviction on the ground of default and is directed against order dated September 17, 1994 pasted by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Civil Revision Case No. 112 of 1994 thereby affirming Order No. 67 dated March 4, 1994 passed by the Munsif, 2nd Court, Sealdah in Misc. Case No. 19 of 1994.
(2.) THE opposite party herein brought against the petitioner in the Ist Court of Munsif, Sealdah a suit being Title Suit No. 57 of 1976 on the ground of default in payment of rent. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Additional Court of Munsif at Sealdah and was re-numbered as Title Suit No. 22 of 1981. On September 14, 1981 the said suit was decreed on compromise on the basis of petition for compromise filed by the parties and the same was made a part of decree. The terms of the compromise as embodied in the decree is quoted below :- "(a) That the suit would be decreed on compromise with costs. (b) That on accounting it appears that the plaintiff will get a sum of Rs. 21,800/- (Rupees twenty one thousand eight hundred only) from the defendant towards arrears of rent in respect of the suit property in the above suit upto the month of August 1981, out of which the defendant has this day paid to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), the receipt whereof the plaintiff acknowledges hereby and also by a separate receipt given herein. (c) That the defendent would go on paying to the plaintiff the current rent of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred only) as per English Calendar month in respect of the suit property for the months from September 1981 onwards within the fifteenth day of the following month for which it becomes due. (d) That the defendant would pay the balance of the arrears mentioned in Clause (b) above being a sum of Rs. 16,800/- (Rupees sixteen thousand eight hundred only) to the plaintiff at an instalment of Rs. 250/- (Rupees two hundred fifty only) per quarter commencing from September 1981. (e) That so long the defendant will be paying the rent and the instalment as stated above, the plaintiff would not be entitled to put the instant decree into effect and evict the defendant from the property and realise the cost thereof. (f) That any two defaults in payment of the current rent and the instalment mentioned above on the part of the defendant would enable the plaintiff to put the instant decree into execution and evict the defendant from the property and realise the cost thereof. (g) That on the defendant's paying of the current rent and the arrears of rent as stipulated above, with the full payment of the said arrears within the period stipulated hereinabove, the instant decree rould become a nullity. (h) That this petition of compromise shall form a part of the decree. (i) That each term of this petition of compromise shall be a consideration for the others." There is no dispute that opposite party received the instalments towards arrears upto the quarter of September 1982 covering the period of September to November 1982 and also current amount equivalent to rent upto the month of September 1982. There is also no gainsaying the fact that the opposite party refused to accept current amount equivalent to rent for the month of October 1982 sent to her by postal money order and further refused to accept the quarterly instalment for December 1982 covering the period of December 1982 to February 1983 sent to her by postal money order.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid refusals, the petitioner started depositing the amount equivalent to rent from the month of October 1982 in the office of the Rent Controller, Calcutta and has been depositing the said amount month by month. So far the instalments towards arrears are concerned, instalment for the month of December 1982 covering the period of December 1982 to February 1983 having been refused, the petitioner deposited the same in Court vide Challan No. 21905(V) dated December 6, 1982. According to the petitioner, the learned Trial Judge having refused to accept subsequent instalment the petitioner went on sending those instalments to the opposite party by postal money orders hut the latter refused to accept those money orders on each occasion.;