M. M. Dutt, D. C. Chakravorti, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is at the instance of the defendant Union of India representing the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department and is directed against order no. 40 dated July 4, 1977 of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta rejecting the application of the petitioner for modification of order No. 27 dated July 9, 1976 passed under S. 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

( 2 ) A suit for ejectment has been instituted by the plaintiffs opposite parties, as joint trustees against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent since May 1972 at the rate of Rs. 1043/- per month in respect of the suit premises consisting of a portion of the ground floor of premises no. 2/2b, Harrington Street, Calcutta. The Little Russel Street Post Office of the petitioner is situate in the suit premises. The petitioner has been contesting the suit by a written statement inter alia denying therein the relationship of landlord and tenant between the opposite parties and itself. The case of the petitioner is that its tenancy of the suit premises is under one Narayan Prosad Chowdhury. The said Narayan Prosad Chowdhury intimated the petitioner that on May 18, 1972 a trust had been created by him in respct of his share in the said premises no. 22/2b, Harrington Street, Calcutta and the opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 had been appointed by him trustees in respect of the said trust. Subsequently, by his letter dated September 19, 1972 the said Narayan Prosad Cowdhury instructed the petitioner not to make any payment of rent to the said trustees on the ground that he was cheated by them. In view of the said instruction, the petitioner could not pay rent either to the said Narayan Prosad Chowdhury or to the said trustees. The petitioner was served with a notice under S. 226 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 whereby the petitioner was directed by the Income-tax Officer to forthwith pay to him, the monies, if any, due and payable to the said Narayan Prosad Chowdhury on account of rent. The petitioner who did not attorn the tenancy in favour of the said trustees, paid a sum of Rs. 45,982/- to the Income-tax Officer towards rent of the suit premises for the period from May 1, 1972 to December 31, 1976 bona fide believing that such payment would be a valid discharge of its liability on account of rent for the said period. It is contended by the petitioner that in the circumstances it is not a defaulter in payment of rent and is not, therefore, liable to be evicted.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the opposite parties moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Income-tax authorities inter alia challenging the legality and validity of the notices under S. 226 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 served upon the different tenants of the said premises including the petitioner and obtained a Rule Nisi being C. R. 1809 (W) of 1976. An ad interim injunction was also granted by this Court inter alia restraining the Income-tax authorities from taking any steps pursuant to the said notices under S. 226 (3 ). Further, this Court directed that Mr. L. P. Agarwalla, the Advocate of the petitioners in the said Rule (opposite parties herein) would realise rents from all the tenants of the said premises no. 2/2b, Harrington Street, Calcutta.

( 4 ) THE petitioner also filed an application under S. 17 (2) of the Act raising a dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the amount of rent and denied that it was a defaulter. The learned Chief Judge by his order no. 27 dated July 9, 1976, disposed of the application under S. 17 (2) of the Act and directed the petitioner to pay to the opposite parties or deposit in Court within 30 days from that date, the sum of Rs. 52,150/- towards arrears of rent and Rs. 9,240/- towards interest, that is, in all a sum of Rs. 61,393/ -. The learned Chief Judge, however, did not a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document