The court held that the deposits made by the defendant in the name of S.K. Chatterjee as landlord in the office of the Rent Controller were not valid and that the trial court could not invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to extend the time for making deposits or payments under Section 17(1).

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.

1. The defendant-tenant has obtained this Rule against the order of the learned Munsif, 1st Additional Court, Alipore, rejecting her petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allowing the plaintiff's prayer for striking out her defence against delivery of possession under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

2. On 1.7.1972 the present opposite parties as plaintiffs had instituted a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the ground-floor of the premises No.36. Kabir Road, inter alia, on the grounds that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent since January, 1972, that she had sublet the premises and that the plaintiffs reasonably required the suit premises for their own use and occupation. On 12.3.1973 the said suit was ex-parte decreed against the defendant-tenant. Thereafter, she applied under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was allowed and the said ex-parte decree was set aside. Thereafter, the defendant-tenant filed her written statement. The said ejectment suit had been already heard in part. Between 8.6.1977 and 29.6.1977 the plaintiffs' witnesses have been examined-in-chief and cross-examined. On 15.7.1977 examination of the defendant's witnesses commenced. On 23.12.1977 the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. They alleged that the defendant had not complied with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and she had not been paying or depositing the amounts equivalent to current rents. On 23.12.1977 the defendant-tenant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that she had been making deposits in the office of the Rent Controller through different persons at different times. Rents up to 1975 were deposited in the name of S.N. Chatterjee and the other plaintiffs did not object. The said amounts in deposit had been withdrawn. But the name of S.K. Chatterjee in place of S.N. Chatterjee was written in the challans for 1976-77. She claimed that the same were bonafide typing mistakes. She was taking steps for correction of the challans so that there may not be any difficulty for withdrawal of such amounts by the plaintiffs. She prayed for condonation of the mistakes made in the challans under Section 151 of the Code. The defendant-tenant also filed an objection to the application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act filed by the plaintiffs.

3. On 3.2.1978 the court below directed the defendant to produce the challans. The defendant, however, did not produce the said challans in the court below. On 17.2.1978 the plaintiff No.2 was examined as a witness in the said Section 17(3) matter. The defendant did not cross-examine him. She also did not herself depose. On 15.3.1978 the trial court allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and rejected the defendant's application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The obligation under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (before the said provision was amended by the West Bengal Act XXXIX of 1965) could be discharged either by making deposits in Court or by payment to the landlord sums equivalent to rent. The law then did not permit deposit of such sums mentioned in Section 17(1) in the office of the Rent Controller See Siddeswar Paul vs. Prakash Chandra Dutta, 68 CWN 30. The Supreme Court in Kaluram vs. Baidyanath, AIR 1965 SC 1909, had approved the said Special Bench decision and with reference to the state of law prior to the enactment of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act. (Act XXXIX of 1965) had inter alia, pointed out that the scheme of Section 17(1) was a complete scheme by itself. The deposit of rent under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was based on the contractual obligation of the tenant to pay