1. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner herein by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the defendant.

2. In such a suit, the defendant/petitioner filed an application, inter alia, praying for permission from the Court for deposit of the entire arrear rent in Court in order to avail of the reliefs under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The said application of the defendant/petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by Order No. 6 dated 23-5-2007.

3. The defendant also filed another application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission from the Court for fixing two additional collapsible gates and two shutter gates in the shop room. Such prayer of the petitioner was also refused by the learned trial Judge vide Order No. 7 dated 23rd May, 2007.

4. The propriety of both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of the defendant/ petitioner herein.

5. Let me now first of all consider this revisional application with reference to the order being order No. 6 dated 23rd May, 2007 passed by the learned trial Judge.

6. In my view, in a suit for eviction of a tenant under the Transfer of Property Act on termination of relationship of landlord and tenant by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the tenant, there is no provision under which a tenant can be permitted to deposit the arrear rent in such a suit. That apart, this is not a suit for eviction on termination of lease on the ground of forfeiture due to nonpayment of rent. In order to attract the provision under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, there must be a registered lease for a fixed period between the lessor and the lessee and if the suit is filed for recovery of possession by the lessor on the ground of forfeiture of the lease for non-payment of rent before expiry of the lease then only, the tenant can be permitted to deposit the arrear rent in order to get the relief against forfeiture as per the provisions contained in Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.

7. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality in rejecting the petitioners said application.

8. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, submits by referring a decision of this Court in the case of Uttam Kayal v. Sunil Pal, reported in (2008) 1 WBLR (Cal) 706 wherein I held that in a suit by a lessor or licensor for evicting a lessee or a licensee, the defendant may be directed to deposit such amount equivalent to arrear rent or licence fees accrued up to the date of the order, within such time as the Court may fix and such defendant may also be directed to continue to deposit rent and licence fees for each succeeding month during the pendency of the suit as per the provision contained in Order XVA of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact when the said order was passed by this Court, it escaped the notice of this Court that the provisions contained in Order XVA of the Code of Civil Procedure was introduced by the High Court Amendment at Bombay and as such the said provision is not applicable to any other State apart from the State of Maharashtra.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the decision which was passed by myself in the aforesaid case of Uttam Kayal v. Sunil Pal (supra) cannot be held to be a law applicable in West Bengal.

10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any substance in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Mukherjee.

11. This Court, thus, does not find any substance in this revisional application so far as the challenge with regard to order No. 6 dated 23rd May, 2007 is concerned.

12. Accordingly, the said order is not interfered with.

13. However, the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this revisional application upon the opposite party intimating that this application so far as it relates to the challenge with regard to order No. 7 dated 23rd May, 2007 is concerned, will be listed for hearing two weeks after the re-opening of the Court after the ensuing puja vacation under the heading "Listed Motion".

14. Needless to mention here that the pendency of this revisional application will not be construed as the grant of stay of further proceeding of the suit and as such, the learned trial Judge is absolutely free to proceed with the said suit to his own convenience according to law notwithstanding pendency of this revisional application.

15. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.