Non-compliance with statutory obligations during the pendency of an eviction suit may lead to the striking out of the defense against delivery of possession.

MIR DARA SHEKO, J.

1. The CO being No. 1904 of 2016 along with CO No. 1332 of 2016 and CO No. 1923 of 2016, were heard simultaneously, since point at issue was the same and identical, as to whether after determination of the arrears of rent and direction of the Court for making its deposit with statutory interest, if default recurred during pendency of the eviction suit in the matter of making such deposit of the sum equivalent to the rent payable in the suit premises, in that case whether said default is condonable, or alternatively, for making such default the defence against delivery of possession is to be struck out. The point at issue was dealt with in details by discussing Various cases cited at the bar in the case of Mithun @ Akhtar Ali v. Sk. Azizul Haque & Ors. in CO. No. 1332 of 2016, effect of which shall also be followed in the instant case.

2. In the case On hand, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) II Court, Asansol in the suit by determining the arrears of rent directed the petitioners/defendants/tenants (who will be called on hereinafter shortly as the petitioners) to satisfy the arrear amount by 10 equal instalments and also were directed for making payment of the current rent from the month of November 2011, thenceforth, in accordance with law. Instead of complying the said order however, was tested by filing one application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being CO No. 803 of 2012. This Court on 26th June 2012, virtually by upholding the order of the learned trial Court, with a rider regarding payment of current rent disposed of the CO. with direction, which is set out hereunder:

"If there is any default In payment of the current rent from November 2011, such default may be made good in course of the next two months".

3. It is needless to mention that this Court while exercising its power of judicial review within the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India instead of re-examining the fact or evidence, only examines the procedure and law applied thereto to satisfy as to whether law and procedure applicable to the matter were relevantly applied or not, or, as whether any miscarriage of justice was caused for its non-application.

4. As it has been indicated in the order impugned "since no direction was given by the appellate Court to deposit the arrears of monthly rent as well as current monthly rent the defence thought it was not obligatory upon them to deposit any amount." From the above perspective it reveals that it was perceived by the petitioners in one hand that they thought that they were not supposed to deposit any amount towards current monthly rent since it was not obligatory and, on the other hand they did not deposit the sum as there was no direction of the appellate Court. This Court already has indicated that learned trial Court while disposing of the application under Section 17(2) of the Old West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) determining apart from direction to make payment of the arrears by instalments also directed the petitioners to make payment of current rent from the November 2011, in accordance with law. So far as making deposit of the sum equivalent to the current rent is concerned there is no basic difference between the old provision of Section 17(1) or new provision Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, since it has to be deposited by 15th of each succeeding English calendar month, till disposal of the suit, if not otherwise directed. It has also been indicated above that when the said order of trial Court was decided in CO. 803 of 2012, this Court again warned so that the petitioners may not fall in default. So far as making payment of current rent. Therefore, the alibi of making thought of their own that the petitioners had neither any obligation nor any direction from the Court to make deposit as regard the sum equivalent to the current rent is so hopeless that it is unfit to incur any con