ghose was appointed receiver of the mortgaged properties including the premises in the present suit.
during the pendency of this suit the respondent made an application under s. 17 3 of the act and claimed that the defence of appellant number 1 against delivery of possession should be struck out because he had failed to deposit or pay the amount in companyrt as required by s. 17 1 of the act.
this written statement was filed on april 11 1962.
and he urged that the deposit of rent thus made by him amounted to payment of rent by him to the respondent under s. 22 3 and therefore.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 10 1964 of the calcutta high companyrt in civil rule number 4439 of 1962.
after he acquired title to the suit premises in this manner the respondent informed appellant number 1 about the same by his letter dated the 2nd april 1960.
the learned single judge who heard this 1 62 c.w.n.
on december il 1961 the respondent sued appellant number 1 and appellant number 2 kaluram bajranglal in the first court of the muns if at asansol for ejectment.
during the proceedings of the said suit mr.
according to him the existing structure had become very old and was in a dilapidated companydition.
in regard to the averment made by the respondent that appellant number 1 had failed to pay or deposit the rents due for the last three years appellant number 1 made a detailed dental.
the written statement further averred that the deposit of the monthly rent companytinued to be made regularly under s. 21 and that the rent for march 1962 had been duly deposited on april 10 1962.
on february 18 1960 the receiver put the mortgaged properties to sale and the respondent baidyanath gorain purchased them.
numberdefault had been companymitted by him at all.
35 per month payable according to the english calendar.
it appears that in 1953 the calcutta national bank limited number in liquidation sued the owner wasal on the original side of the calcutta high companyrt on a mortgage.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 875 of 1964.
that is how the respondent became the owner of the suit premises along with other properties under mortgage.
he urged that he reasonably required the premises for rebuilding them after .demolishing the existing structure.
he also alleged that appellant number 1 had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to appellant number 2 and that he had failed to pay or deposit the rents for the last three years in accordance with law.
in the said suit a preliminary decree was passed and in due companyrse it was followed by a final decree.
k. chatterjee and d.n.
he urged that the rents had been regularly paid to the owner in tune before august 1960 and he pleaded that since the month of august 1960 when he found that the owner was number prepared to accept the rents from him he deposited them with the house rent companytroller asansol from month to month.
it was his case that numberice had been served on the owner in respect of these deposits from month to month as provided by section 21 3 of the west bengal premises tenancy act 1956 act xii of 1956 herematter called the act .
road asansol as a monthly tenant under harbhajan singh wasal who was the owner of the said premises.
appellant number 1 kaluram onkarmal was let into possession of the premises described as holding number 182h g.t.
the rent agreed to be paid was rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar c.j.
the claim for ejectment thus made by the respondent was disputed by appellant number 1 on several grounds.
the said sale was confirmed by the calcutta high companyrt on march 1 1960.
he claimed vacant possession of the premises let out to appellant number 1 on several grounds.
this application was strenuously opposed by appellant number 1 on the ground that s. 17 3 companyld number be invoked against him in view of the fact that he had been depositing the rent from month to month under s. 21.
appellant number 1 denied that the respondent required the suit premises for rebuilding and also disputed his allegation that he had sublet the said premises unlawfully.
mukherjee for the respondent.
c. chatterjee and d. goburdhan for the appellants.
this order was challenged by both the appellants by preferring a revision application before the calcutta high court.
