Metal Press Works Ltd. vs J.K. & Sons on 28 April, 1978
16. The meaning of the expression "having obtained such relief once" in the proviso after amendment has given rise to different arguments as to legislative intent. Does it mean the relief obtained in a previous suit filed by the landlord against the tenant, or does it contemplate the case of a tenant who has committed two defaults within a period of twelve months before filing of the suit ? However, Mr. Hirak Mitter has invited our attention to the decision of the Special Bench of this Court in Jamuna Prosad Chowrasia v. Kisorilal Poddar, where the amended proviso came up for consideration. In that case reference was made under Chap. II, Rule 1 (ii) of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court. The plaintiff in that case alleged that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent for four months within a period of twelve months. Before the learned trial Judge one of the issues was whether the defendant was in default in payment for four months within a period of twelve months by making no payment of rent. The learned Judge held in favour of the plaintiff and passed the decree. The new proviso in Sub-section (4) came into effect during the pendency of the appeal. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that since the appellant had made deposits in terms of Section 17 (2) and since he has not obtained any relief under Sub-section (4) on any earlier occasion, no decree or order for delivery of possession to the landlord on the ground of default in payment of rent by the appellant could be made by reason of the aforesaid proviso. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant that the amend-ed proviso contemplates that if only a defaulting tenant after having obtained any relief from a Court under Sub-section (4) in a suit again commits the same default and is again sued for ejectment he can-not in those circumstances get any relief under Sub-section (4) in the subsequent suit.