JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order 9th dated January, 2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Uluberia in Title suit no. 159 of 2000, the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred.

2. The petitioner contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties as plaintiff filed aforesaid suit for declaration and eviction against the father of the defendant/petitioner herein in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Uluberia. After service of summons the father of the present defendants entered appearance in the suit by filing application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the plaintiff filed written objection against the same. By order no. 152 dated 26.6.2018, learned trial court was pleased to dispose of the said application under Section 17(2) and 2(A) of the Act of 1956, inter alia fixing the quantum of the rent to be deposited by the defendant.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order dated 26.6.2018, the plaintiff preferred a civil revision before this Court, being C.O. 2184 of 2018 and this court was pleased to dispose of the same inter alia directing the court below to reconsider the application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the act, only after the tenants would comply with the provisions of Section 17(1). On 9.1.2020, after remand said application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the Act was again taken up for hearing in presence of both the parties and learned trial Judge was pleased to reject the application as not maintainable in the eyes of law and fixed the next date of hearing for framing of issue.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned was passed on the basis of wrong interpretation of law and he has practically failed to appreciate that Section 17(1) of the Act is not mandatory unlike the latest act of 1997 and the said act does not mandate to file application under Section 17(1) of the Act prior to filing an application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the Act and as such the order was passed on the basis of surmise and conjectures.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the defendant has not applied under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. He further submits that defendant admitted at least Rs. 50/-per month as an arrear rent, month by month, which he had not deposited before the court below within one month from his appearance and as such the court below rightly came to the conclusion that for non-compliance of Section 17(1) of the said Act by not depositing the admitted arrear amount of rent, the application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) is not maintainable. He further submits that the defendant/tenant has not even prayed for instalment for deposit of the arrear rent in his application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A). Accordingly, the trial court rightly rejected the defendant’s prayer under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the said act and such order does not call for any interference.

6. On perusal of the application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the said act which was filed by the petitioner on 31.7.2001, it appears that the petitioner/defendant has prayed for a determination as to whether the defendant is a tenant in respect of the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 150/-or not and also prayed for a direction for payment of monthly arrear rent of Rs.50/-per month by way of easy instalments.

7. On perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has contended in paragraph 3 that in consideration of the new construction, huge sum has been invested by the plaintiff and as such it was agreed between the parties that the monthly rent will be Rs. 500/-per month.

8. Sub-section (2A) of Section 17 of runs as follows:-

(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), on the application of the tenant, the Court may, by order