Aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division , Howrah, the respondent landlord filed a revision petition before the High Court at Calcutta under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was numbered as C.O.No.472 of 2000.
The appellant tenant was served with summons of the suit on 27.5.1995 and with the leave of the Court he began depositing the monthly rents for the suit premises in companyrt with effect from the month of July 1995.
The respondent before us claims to be the absolute owner of the premises situated at Holding No.
Inasmuch as, in spite of having received the numberice, the appellant tenant failed to vacate the suit premises, the respondent landlord was companypelled to file a suit for eviction against the appellant tenant, being Title Suit No 181 of 1995, in the Court of Third Munsif at Howrah, inter alia praying for a decree of eviction against the appellant tenant and for delivery of possession of the suit premises in favour of the respondent landlord.
By the said order the learned companyrt disposed of the petition filed under Section 17 2 and 2A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act by the appellant herein who was the tenant and declaring that the appellant tenant was number a defaulter in payment of rent.
The appellant tenant thereafter deposited the rents for the months of March, April and May 1994 with the Rent Controller, Howrah, and companytinued to deposit the rents regularly with the said Rent Controller up to June 1995.
The respondent landlord filed his objection to the said application under Section 17 2 and 2A denying all the statements made therein.
After attornment, the appellant became the tenant under the respondent in respect of the suit premises at a rental of Rs.40/ per month according to the English calendar.
The appellant tenants application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division on 4.9.1998 and thereafter the application filed by the appellant tenant under Section 17 2 and 2A of the Act was taken up for hearing and after a protracted hearing, in which evidence was led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division came to the companyclusion that the monthly rents had been tendered by the appellant tenant within the time limit prescribed under Section 4 of the Act, which the respondent landlord intentionally did number accept, as a result whereof the appellant tenant was companypelled to deposit the same with the Rent Controller, Howrah and subsequently with the Court from the month of July 1995.
Prior to the said period, as will appear from the materials on record, the rent for the month of March 1994 was tendered by the appellant tenant to the respondent landlord on 2nd April 1994 and 25th April 1994 respectively, but the Money Orders were refused by the respondent landlord on 9th April 1994 and 29th April 1994.
However, by way of caution, after receiving summons of the suit, the appellant tenant filed an application under Section 17 2 and 2A of the Act together with an application for companydonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Since, according to the respondent landlord, the suit premises was also reasonably required by him for his own use and occupation and for the benefit of his dependents and family members, the respondent landlord sent a numberice to the appellant tenant under Section 13 6 of the Act calling upon the appellant tenant to quit and vacate the tenanted premises upon the expiry of the month of March 1995 or upon expiry of the month of tenancy which would expire after a month from the date of receipt of the numberice.
According to the respondent landlord, the appellant tenant was a statutory defaulter as he failed and neglected to pay the monthly rents since the month of March 1994.
252/4, Panchanantala Road, Howrah 711101, since his purchase of the property by a registered deed of companyveyance dated 16.3.1992.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. This appeal pursuant to leave granted is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.2.2003 passed by a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in a Civil Revision Application being C.O.No.472 of 2000 wherein the respondent before us, who was the landlord, had challenged the Order dated 24.1.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division , 3rd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.181 of 1995.
