S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE subject-matter of challenge in the present revisional proceedings is an order, dated 24th September, 1990, passed in Case Nos. C 18358 and C 18359, by the Rent Controller, on applications of the revisional petitioner for deposit of rents for the months of June, July and August, 1990 and the succeeding months. The Rent Controller rejected the applications on the ground that the rents for the months as referred to above not having been deposited nor tendered within the statutory time, the prayer made was liable to be rejected.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts needed for disposal of the present revisional application, upon consideration of the propriety of the order passed by the Rent Controller, are that on refusal by the landlord to accept the rent for the month of May, 1990, the tenant petitioner sent the said monthly rent for May, 1990, by money order, on 7th May, 1990 and the said money order returned on 9th August, 1990 with postal endorsement 'not claimed'; the said amount was thereafter, deposited with the Rent Controller after making necessary affidavit under section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, on 22nd August, 1990 that is, within 15 days from the date of return of the money order and such deposit was found in the impugned order by the Rent Controller to have been validly made. The prayer for deposit of rents for the months of June onwards had, however, been refused as stated above by the Rent Controller by the impugned order and the validity and propriety of the said order have been assailed in the present revisional proceedings.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has averred that its comprehensive application for Simultaneous deposit of the rents for the aforesaid four months had not been entertained by the Rent Controller and as such two separate application as above had to be made.

( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. Subrata Roy, in support of the application, and Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharyya, on behalf of the contesting opposite parties. The law of tender and deposit with the Rent Controller, as it stood prior to the amendment of the provisions of sections 21 and 22 of the aforesaid Act, rendered every deposit with the Rent Controller, which was not preceded by valid tender invalid. After the decision in the case of Ballav Das Agarwal (P) Limited v. Dalhousie Properties Limited reported in 65 Calwn 1021 followed by other decisions a question arose as to whether after tender and refusal of a month's rent, subsequent deposits were needed to be preceded by fresh tenders? By a subsequent Division Bench decision of this Court, in the case of Kabiraj Shri Narayan Sharma v. Baijnath Bhartia, reported in AIR 1968 Cal 56 it was laid down that all deposits with the Rent Controller must be preceded by tender. In other words, refusal by the landlord once was held not to dispense with the requirement of tender of rents for the subsequent months and deposits with the Rent Controller without such tender would not be valid in the absence of such tender. That state of law, however, had been altered by amendments in the provisions of sections 21 and 22 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Whatever confusion was there has been set at naught by and removed clear language of the amendments introduced in 1969. Proviso to section 21, which was in existence from before 1969, dispensed with filing of an affidavit in support of an application under the said section after the first deposit if the reasons and circumstances under which such deposit had been made remained the same. Proviso to section 22 (1) of the said Act indicates that in case of tender of rent by money order and refusal to accept the same by the landlord, the time for deposit with the Rent Controller would stand statutorily extended by 15 days from the date from which it returned to the tenant. Sub-section (3) of the said section 22 lays down that a deposit made in compliance with sub-section (1) of section 22, including the Proviso referred to above, if not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document