J. Bhattacharya JUDGMENT
J. Bhattacharya, J.
Re: RVM No. 43 of 2008
1. The defendant (tenant) has filed this application praying for review of the order passed by this Court on 24th September, 2007 in C.O. 3357 of 2007. By the said order, the order of the learned Trial Judge by which the defence of the tenant was struck out for non-compliance of the provision of the section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, was affirmed by this Court, as this Court found that the deposit of rent for certain period were invalid as such deposits were not made in the manner as prescribed under section 7(1) of the said Act. The suit for eviction was filed by the landlord under the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, in 2005. At the time when the said suit was filed, there were three options available to the tenant for deposit of rent. 'One of such options was to pay the rent to the landlord directly; the other option was to deposit the rent with the controller and the other option was to deposit such rent with the Court.
2. Subsequently in 2006, the provision of section 7(1)(a) was amended and the forum for deposit of such rent with the controller was deleted. The said amendment of 2006 came into effect on 1st June, 2006 since when as per the amended provision of the said Act only two forums were available to the tenant for deposit of rent in connection with the pending eviction suit. One of such options was to pay the rent directly to the landlord' and the other option was to deposit the rent with the Court in connection with the pending suit.
3. Admittedly, the tenant deposited the rent regularly with the rent controller upto August 2007 without following the mandate of the said amended provision of law. Thus, the deposit of rent with the rent controller for the period from June 2006 to August 2007 became invalid, as those deposits were not made inconformity with the amended provision of the said Act. In fact that was the reason for which the defence of the tenant against eviction was struck out by the learned Trial Judge on the application filed by the landlord under section 7(3) of the said Act.
4. This Court has also affirmed the said order of the learned Trial Judge by the order which is now under review. If the order under review is considered at a glance then this court does not find any apparent illegality in the said order as the deposit for the period from June 2005 to August 2007 were all invalid deposits.
5. But fact remains that the tenant deposited the rent for the said period regularly with the rent controller.
6. Thus, this is the case where this Court finds that the default which the tenant committed in depositing rent for the said period is really a default in technical sense and not a default in real sense, as it is really a case of irregular deposit and not a case of non-deposit of rent. As such this Court by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. vs. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1015/1987 : AIR 1987 SC 1010 holds that striking out of the defence of the tenant against the eviction for such technical defaults, was not justified.
7. As such this Court holds that the order which was passed by this Court on 24th September, 2007 is required to be reviewed.
8. The application for review is thus, allowed.
9. The order being order No. 11 dated 10th August, 2007 passed by the learned 5th Judge, Presidency Small Cause Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 299 of 2005 by which the defence of the petitioner against the eviction in the said suit, was struck out is set aside.
10. The revisional application being C.O. 3357 of 2007 is thus, allowed.
Re: C.O. No. 826 of 2008
11. Let me now consider the other revisional application file........