S.K. MOOKHERJEE, J

(1) IN this Revisional application, on the Subject-matter of challenge is an order, being order No. 77 dated 19th of March. 1992, passed by the learned 2nd Assistant District Judge, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 135 of 1988. The tenant is the Revisional petitioner before us and it has been contended that the impugned order suffered from a jurisdictional error inasmuch as the amount of alleged security deposit of Rs. 6,000/- (rupees six thousand only) was not directed to be adjusted against the arrear amount of rent, as found by the learned trial Judge.

(2) WE have heard Mr. Biswas in support of the application and Mr. Bakshi in opposition thereto. Mr. Biswas has relied upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1981 (2) CLJ at page 254 in support of his contention that the amount of security deposit ought to be adjusted against the amount of arrear rent. In the case cited, the specified reason for direction for adjustment of such security deposit was based on a finding or presumption made by the learned single Judge that the deposit was intended to secure non-payment of rent. There is no material indicated in the said judgment from which the exact terms of tenancy can be deciphered. In the instant case, a letter of tenancy exists, although the validity and genuineness of the said letter has been seriously challenged by Mr. Biswas ; but such letter, at least, prima facie indicates that apart from payment of rent, the tenant had several other financial obligations viz. , payment of Corporation taxes, both in owner and occupation shares, payment of maintenance charges, also had responsibility of keeping flat and all fittings in tenantable condition without any damage. The tenant was also under an obligation to pay the electricity charges. From the deposition of the tenants husband, who was the only witness examined in connection with the proceeding u/s. 17 (1) (2) and (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, it appears that a sum of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) had been tendered to the landlord as security for payment of rent and Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) was also paid as security. Accordingly, it is unequivocally clear that such amount of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) could not be a security for payment of the last months rent, as contended by Mr. Biswas and such security must have meant security for the purpose of other obligations of the tenants. The learned trial Judge, was, therefore right in not allowing adjustment the amount of arrear rent and such non adjustment being the only point of objection raised on behalf of the tenant/petitioner, the order impugned does not call for any interference and should be affirmed. It is pertinent to note at this stage that on admission the tenant is in receipt of Rs. 5,000/- or Rs. 6,000/- by way of rent by letting out the said flat to one statutory Corporation. Accordingly, we affirm the impugned order and dismiss the Revisional application.

(3) SINCE the suit is one of 1988 and is based on grounds, including one for reasonable requirement, it is desirable that the hearing of the suit should be expedited and we accordingly direct the trial Court to do so.

(4) SINCE the opposite party has not been afforded any opportunity to file affidavit-in-opposition, Mr. Bakshi, on instructions, disputes the truth and correctness of the averments made in the Revisional application.

(5) THERE will be no order as to costs. Let xerox copies of this order passed today be handed over to both the learned advocates for the contesting parties on the usual terms on their undertaking to apply for and obtain urgent certified copies. A. K. Bhattacharji, J. , I agree. Application rejected.