A tenant who has obtained relief under section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 in respect of the premises, and has again made default in payment of rent for four months within a period of twelve months, shall not be entitled to get any relief under sub-section (4).

Joytosh Banerjee, J.

This is an application for review under section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is directed against the judgement dt. 9.8.2000 passed in S.A. No. 176/2000 by me sitting with Justice Y.R. Meena (as His Lordship then was).

2. The second appeal in question was against the judgement and decree of dismissal of the first appeal by the 1st Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Alipore in the district of 24-Parganas (S) affirming the judgement and decree of dismissal passed by the trial court. Plaintiff brought the suit as the owner of premises No. 253-A, B.B. Chatterjee Road, P.S. Kasba alleging that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Ganesh Chandra Pal was a tenant in respect of the suit room, situated in the said premises at a rental of Rs. 40/- per month. Previously plaintiff had the occasion to bring the suit for ejectment against the said predecessor-in-interest Ganesh Ch. Pal claiming his eviction from the suit room on the ground of default and the same was registered as Suit No. 455 of 1980. That suit was dismissed on the basis of a solenama on 7.4.84 wherein the defendant original tenant was adjudged as a defaulter in payment of rent but he was given protection against the eviction under section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It was the specific allegation that the said Ganesh Ch. Pal paid rent to the landlord/ plaintiff upto October, 1985 and thereafter he defaulted in payment of rent during his life time. The original tenant died on 22.5.86. The defendants were the successor-in-interest of the said Ganesh Ch. Pal and they also defaulted in payment of rent since November, 1985 after they stepped into the shoes of the original defendant. In that background, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant after terminating the tenancy by serving a combined notice under section 13(6) of the Premises Tenancy Act and 106 of the T.P. Act. The defendant No. 3 contested the suit by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff was a thika tenant, though he was the owner of the structure in question. The original tenant Ganesh Ch. Pal and after his death, the contesting defendant paid rent upto May, 1986 without any rent receipt and thereafter the defendant started depositing the rent in the office of the Rent Controller. Both the courts below found that the defendant/tenants under the plaintiff, defaulted in payment of rent and before them their predecessor-in-interest, the original tenant also defaulted in payment of rent from November, 1985 to May, 1986. Since the original defendant got protection from the decree of the decree of eviction the present defendants as a successor was not entitled to get any protection under section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and with this findings the court below decreed the suit directing the eviction of the house tenants and dismissed the appeal affirming the decree of eviction.

3. In the judgement impugned, we considered the question whether in view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the original defendants and after him, the defendants defaulted in payment of rent, there was any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. It was noted in the judgement impugned, that both the courts below reached at a concurrent finding that since the original defendant got the protection from the eviction under sub-section (4) of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the defendants of the suit one of whom was the appellant before the court were not entitled to get any protection from eviction in view of proviso to sub-section (4) of section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It was further noted that such decision had been challenged in the second appeal on the ground that since earlier suit had been disposed of on the basis of the compromise application, there was no question of compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-sec