Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.
1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being order No. 12 dated 12th February, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Serampore in the District of Hooghly in Title Suit No. 2223 of 2005 whereby the defendant's prayer for permitting him to deposit all arrear rents at a time before the Court was rejected by the learned Trial Judge on contest.
2. The propriety of such an order is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of defendant/petitioner herein.
3. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner's such prayer in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner herein for evicting the defendant from the suit property by determination of relationship of landlord and tenant by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the petitioner.
5. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for mense profit @ monthly rent equivalent from the month of October 2005 upto the delivery of the vacant possession of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff.
6. In such a suit, the defendant/petitioner filed an application seeking permission from the Court to deposit all arrear rents at a time before the Court. The learned Trial Judge rejected the defendant's said application by holding that in a suit for eviction under the Transfer of Property Act by service of notice upon the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, there is no scope for depositing rent in Court.
7. The learned Trial Judge also held that since such an application was filed at a belated stage, the prayer of the defendant cannot be allowed.
8. The defendant's application was, thus, rejected by the learned Trial Judge with the aforesaid findings.
9. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned.
10. In my view, the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned order, failed to take note of the provision as contained under Order 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that in a suit by a lessor or a licensor against a lessee or a licensee, as the case may be, for his eviction with or without arrears of rent or licensee fee and future mesne profits from him, the defendant shall deposit such amount as the Court may direct on account of arrears upto the date of the order within such time as the Court may fix and thereafter continue to deposit for each succeeding month the rent or licence fee claimed in the suit as the Court may direct. It has further provided therein that the defendant shall, unless otherwise directed continue to deposit such amount till the decision of the suit.
11. The consequence for non-compliance of the said provision has also been provided in the said provision which provides that in the event of any default in making the deposits as aforesaid, the Court may subject to provisions of Sub-rule (2) strike off the defence.
12. In view of the aforesaid provision as contained in Order 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court holds that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application wherein the petitioner sought for permission to deposit all arrear rents at a time before the Court.
13. This Court, thus, holds that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order, thus, stands set aside.
14. The learned Trial Judge is directed to calculate the arrear rents and/or damages on account of wrongful use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendant for the period for which the defendant committed default in payment of rent and/or damages upto the current month and will permit the defendant to deposit the same within the time to be fixed by the learned Trial Judge in this regard.
15. The learned Trial Judge is also directed to pass necessary order for directing the petitioner to deposit the rent and/or damages for wrongful use and occupation for the current month in terms of the aforesaid provision. Such determination should be made positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
16. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously after complying with formalities.