Ideal Engineering Works vs Bhuban Mohan Shaw Estate (Private) Ltd.

Sen, J.—This revisional application is directed against the order of Shri H. Kar, Munsif, Second Additional Court, Alipore, striking out the defence of the Petitioner-Defendant in an ejectment suit.. The summons in the suit was served on the Defendant-Petitioner on December 30, 1956. The Defendant had deposited the arrears of rent with interest for the period from June, 1956 to October, 1956, with the Rent Controller on December 4, 1956. He deposited rent for November, 1956, on December 26, 1956 and the rent for December, 1956, on January 30, 1957, with the Rent Controller. These deposits were, therefore, made within the period prescribed by Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. As regards the subsequent deposits they were not made by the 15th of each succeeding month. Thus rent for January, 1957, was deposited with the Rent Controller on March 1, 1957. The rent for February, 1957, was deposited on March 22, 1957. The rent for March, 1957, was deposited on April 20, 1957. The rent for April, 1957, was deposited on May 23, 1957 and the rent for May, 1957, was deposited on June 22. 1957. Therefore, the landlord-Plaintiff applied u/s 17 of the Act for striking out the defence. The learned Munsif held that there had been failure to deposit rent from January, 1957, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act and that, therefore, he was bound u/s 17(3) of the Act to strike out the defence against delivery of possession and he made an. order accordingly.

On behalf of the Defendant-Petitioner Mr. Roy Choudhury has urged that the deposit with the Rent Controller was made within the further period mentioned in Section 22(1) of the Act, namely, within fifteen days of the time for the proper deposit, that is, within the last day of the month following that for which the rent was payable; and that in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act the deposit should be accepted as valid deposit and valid payment of rent to the landlord. On the question whether deposit with the Rent Controller is payment to the landlord within the meaning of Section 17(1) of the Act, two Hon''ble Judges of this Court have taken conflicting views. In Gokul Bala Roy v. Sarat Chandra Ghosal (1957) 61 C.W.N. 890 Renupada Mukherjee, J. took the view that a deposit with the Rent Controller following service of the writ of summons in an ejectment suit is equivalent to "payment to the "landlord" u/s 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In Ganesh Chandra Ganguly v. Mahabir Prosad (1957) 61 C.W.N. 893 Culm Ray, J. took the view that a deposit with the Rent Controller could not be accepted as valid deposit for the purposes of Section 17(1) of the Act and that the provisions of Section 17(1) must be strictly followed. In this connection Guha Ray, J. pointed out that what was deposited u/s 17(1) for the period after the service of the summons is "a sum equivalent to the rent, the amount is not ''''described as rent, whereas under Sections 21 and 22 we are concerned "with deposits of rent with the Rent Controller."

I must clearly agree with the view taken by Guha Ray, J. after carefully considering the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. As pointed out by him, Sections 21 and 22 of the Act speak of deposit of rent to the landlord when the landlord does not accept the rent tendered by the tenant or when there is a bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, whereas Section 17 speaks of the deposit of a sum equivalent to rent and there can be no question of the landlord not accepting the rent tendered or there being doubt as to the person to whom the rent is to be paid. It may be pointed out, further, that while Section 22(3) provides that a valid deposit of rent within the time mentioned in Section 22(1) of the Act constitutes a valid payment of rent to the landlord Section 22(1) makes it clear that such deposit shall be regarded as valid payment to the landlord only for the purposes of Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13; in other words, only for considering the question whether or not the rent during the period, before the suit has been paid regularly or there has been a default in the payment of rent before the suit. A valid deposit with the Rent Controller is to be taken as a valid payment of rent to the landlord within the prescribed time. Section 22 does not provide that deposit of rent with the Rent Controller shall be a valid payment to the landlord for the purposes of Section 17(1) of the Act, also. Clearly this cannot be so for the reasons already mentioned, namely, that after the summons has been served, what is to be deposited is a sum equivalent to rent and, the statute does not. describe the amount deposited as rent.

Mr. Roy Chaudhury has urged that in view of the conflicting decisions of the two learned Judges on this point a reference should be made to a Division Bench so that the conflict can be resolved. In this particular case I do not consider it necessary to do so because in the case dealt with by Renupada Mukherjee, J. there was evidence to show that the rent was deposited with the Rent Controller within the 15th day of the succeeding month. Accordingly, Renupada Mukherjee, J. did not consider whether deposit after the expiry of the 15th of the succeeding month but within the last day of the succeeding month as provided by Section 22(1) would be a valid deposit within the meaning of Section 17. I must clearly hold that for the purposes of Section 17 the date of deposit cannot thus be extended by having recourse to Section 22(1); for, on the failure of the tenant to deposit an amount equivalent to rent by the 15th of the next succeeding month, the tenant becomes at once liable to have his defence struck out and it cannot be considered reasonable that if thereafter within the thirtieth day of the next succeeding month the deposit has been made with the Rent Controller, the order striking out the defence shall again be vacated.

For the reasons given above I agree with the learned Munsif in holding that there was no valid deposit of the amount equivalent to rent for the period from January, 1956 and. therefore, there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and, therefore, the defence was rightly struck out.

This Rule is, therefore, discharged.

No order is made as to costs.