1. This Rule is directed against an order made under theprovisions of Section 14(4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (TemporaryProvisions) Act of 1950. The application was made on June 20, 1951. The prayerwas that an order in terms of Section 14(4) might be made on Defendants Nos. 3to 13. It appears that, though the peon had sent in a return of service of thesummonses in the suit on Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, that service was notconsidered satisfactory or sufficient in law by the court or the Plaintiff. ThePlaintiff put in an application for service of fresh summonses on theDefendants Nos. 1 and 2 under the provisions of Order V, Rule 20 of the Code ofCivil Procedure. An order was made thereupon to issue summonses under Order V,Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but before service could be effected,the court took up for consideration the application under Section 14(4), onJuly 20, 1951, and made an order directing the Defendants Nos. 1 to 13 todeposit arrears of rent within fifteen days and also to continue to deposit thecurrent rents month by month by the fifteenth day of the next following month.

2. The main ground on which this order is challenged aswithout jurisdiction or made in the irregular exercise of jurisdiction is thatthere had been no proper service on Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 at the time theorder was made. It is contended by the learned advocate for the Petitioner thatthe whole scheme of the law in Section 14(4) is that after all the personsagainst whom ejectment is sought had opportunity to decide whether or not tocontest that ejectment, the Plaintiff will have the right, if his prayer forejectment is contested, to ask for an order for deposit of all arrears of rentand for an order of payment of current rent. While the section does not interms say that the application can be made only after service of summonses onall the Defendants, it seems to us inherent in the scheme of the provision madein this Sub-section that there must first be service of the summonses on allthe Defendants before the court can be in a position to consider and dispose ofany such application by the Plaintiff. If it was open, as was suggested by Mr.Mookerjee on behalf of the opposite parties, for the Plaintiff to apply and forthe court to allow an application for deposit of arrears of rent and payment offuture rent as soon as one of, say, ten Defendants has appeared and contestedthe application, a very peculiar position will arise. For if thereafter asecond Defendant appears and contests, there may and generally will be a secondapplication by the Plaintiff and another order by the court. If the order isnot carried out his defence against ejectment will be struck out. Thereafteranother Defendant might appear and again contest the suit. Again, there will bean order on him to pay the entire amount in arrears and the entire rent monthby month and if that is not done his defence will be struck out. The processmay go on till all the Defendants have appeared. Such a procedure isunreasonable and should not be countenanced unless the words of the sectioncompel us to do so. We find nothing in the section which indicates thelegislatures intention that as soon as a single tenant of many tenants hasappeared the Plaintiff can make such an application and the court can make suchan order in terms of Section 14(4) of the Act.

3. It is worth noting in this connection that in Sub-section(4) it is said that the court may make an Order for deposit of the rent. Itdoes not seem judicial exercise of discretion to make such an order when someonly of the Defendants have been served with summonses and the others have notyet had any opportunity of contesting the suit at all.

4. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that anapplication of the Plaintiff landlord under the provisions of Section 14(4) ofthe Act cannot be entertained unless it appears that all the tenant Defendantshave been served with summonses of the suit.

5. It has been contended by Mr. Mookerjee that the peonsreturn of service that was made before the application for substituted serviceshows that there was good service, on Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The report ofthe peon is to the effect that one of the Defendants being a zemindar did notcome out of the house and that the other Defendant had gone to Calcutta andthat in these circumstances the peon had tendered the processes to theirofficer who is described as (sic) and as the officer refused to receive theprocesses he served them by affixing them to the main door of the house.Whether the use of the word (sic) in this case is sufficient to show that theofficer was authorised to accept the processes on behalf of the Defendants is adebatable question. The Plaintiffs own conduct, however, in saying in theapplication for substituted service that the Defendants had been evadingservice and the statement in the affidavit in opposition that the summonsescould not be served, give us good reason to think that the officer described as(sic) was not properly authorised to accept service on behalf of theDefendants. In these circumstances we have come to the conclusion that the casewhich was made by the Plaintiff himself in the application for substitutedservice was not made under any misapprehension as suggested by Mr. Mookerjeehere, but was correct and that, in fact, there was no due service on DefendantsNos. 1 and 2 before the application for substituted service was made.

6. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the courtacted irregularly in the exercise of its jurisdiction in making an order underSection 14(4) of the Act before some of the Defendants had not been served withsummonses of the suit.

7. In this view, we set aside the order passed by him, andorder that the application under Section 14(4), which was made before theservice of summonses on all the Defendants be rejected. It will be open to thePlaintiff to make fresh application, under Sub-section (4) of Section 14, afterservice has been effected on all the Defendants.

8. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. The parties willbear their own costs.

.

Dhirendra Nath Ghoshvs. Purna Chandra Singha(06.05.1952 - CALHC)