Judgment 1. THIS revisional application has been preferred from order dated 20th April, 1989 passed by the learned Assistant District judge, Purulia in Title Suit No. 202/82 of 1977/86. 2. IT appears that the present opposite parties filed the aforementioned suit for eviction of the present petitioner on the ground of default in the matter of payment of rent since April 1973 and also) on the ground of bona fide requirement. The present defendant-petitioner filed a written statement whereby he claimed that he was inducted into the disputed premises by one kedar Nath and Banarasi Debi who were the owners of the disputed premises, that he paid rent to them up to March 1983 and that he stopped paying rent as Kedar Nath did not grant him any receipt beyond October, 1982. It appears that the present opposite parties filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The petitioner opposed that application on the facts already stated. Finding that the petitioner did not file any application under the provisions of Section 17 of the West Bengal Land reforms Act and further that the petitioner failed to establish that he paid any rent from January 1983, the learned Munsif allowed the apposite parties' application under Section 17 (3) and struck out the petitioner's defence against delivery of possession. It is urged from the side of the petitioner that since he never recognised the present opposite parties as his landlords, the learned Munsif could not pass the impugned order under Section 17 (3) of the Act without first resolving the question as to whether there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the opposite parties and him. It is urged from the side of the opposite parties that the Petitioner had, in fact, admitted the opposite parties a his co-sharer landlords. 3. IT appears that the disputed property belonged to one Ram Sahay who died leaving behind his widow, Dakshya Debi and five sons namely, Bajrang lai, Naurang Lai, Monaharial, Vidyadhar and Kedar Nath. It seems to be the case of the opposite parties that Ram Sahay excluded Vidyadhar and Kedar nath from the disputed property by a deed of settlement. 3. IT appears that the disputed property belonged to one Ram Sahay who died leaving behind his widow, Dakshya Debi and five sons namely, Bajrang lai, Naurang Lai, Monaharial, Vidyadhar and Kedar Nath. It seems to be the case of the opposite parties that Ram Sahay excluded Vidyadhar and Kedar nath from the disputed property by a deed of settlement. It seems to be the case of the opposite parties that Dakshya Debi inducted the present petitioner and realised rent from bins upto March 1973 and that since thereafter the petitioner did not pay any rent. The defence case as has been stated above is that the petitioner was inducted by the aforementioned Kedar Nath and banarasi Debt. During the hearing of the present matter it is urged from the side of the petitioner that since he never recognized the present opposite parties who happened recognized the present opposite parties who happened to be the heirs and legal representatives of the first three sons of Ram Sahay as his landlords the learned Munsif was under an obligation to decide as to whether the petitioner was the tenant of the disputed premises under the opposite parties before taking action under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act. He cites in this connection Tirthapati us. Paresh nath, ILR 1967 (1) Cal. 449 where it is laid down that when a tenant challenges the plaintiffs' claim to be the landlords, the Court must decide if the plaintiffs were landlords and the defendant was the tenant under them before striking out the defendant's defence Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. He also cites Nripertdra us. Brorendra AIR 1980 Cal. 15 where also it has also been laid down that the plaintiff must prove that he is the landlord before he avails of the benefit of Section 17 (3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the written statement filled by him in support of his contention that the petitioner never recognised the opposite parties as his landlords, his definite case being that, he was indicted by Kedar Nath and Banarasi Debi was according to him were the owners of the disputed premises. The learned advocate for the opposite parties, however, draws my attention to the petition by the petitioner against the application filed by the opposite parties under Section 17 (3) of the Act. The learned advocate for the opposite parties, however, draws my attention to the petition by the petitioner against the application filed by the opposite parties under Section 17 (3) of the Act. Paragraph 3 of this petition runs in the foliowing way' -That since the said Kedarnath Tewari who is also a co-sharer of the plaintiffs, was collecting rent and granted receipts to this defendant, so the present defendant "did not file any petition under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act," 4. IT is urged from the side of the Opposite: Parties that by the above averments the petitioner clearly and unequivocally admitted the present opposite parties as his co-sharer landlords. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argues that since the petitioner's definite case is that he was inducted by Kedar Nath and Banarasi Debi and that he paid rent only to them, he must be considered to be the tenant of Kedar Nath and Banarasi Debt only and that he cannot be considered to be the tenant of the present opposite parties also. In view of the admissions made in para 3 as quoted above it becomes difficult to hold that the present, petitioner did not admit the present opposite parties as his co-sharer landlords. In that view of the matter the decisions cited from the side of the petitioner cannot have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present 1f follows, therefore the petitioner, who admitted the present opposite parties as his landlords along with the aforementioned Kedar Nath has not admittedly paid any rent since April, 1973. Since after his appearance in the suit was under an obligation to deposit all the arrears of rent and the current rent month regularly in accordance to the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the premises Tenancy Act. This he did not do and there by the brought himself under the purview of Section 17 (3) of the Premises Tenancy Act. It cannot be said that the learned Munsif made any mistake [by allowing the opposite parties' application under Section 17 (3) of the Act and rejecting the petitioner's defence against delivery of possession, 5. IN view of what has been stated above, the impugned order is hereby confirmed and the present revisional application is hereby rejected. 6. SEND copy of this order to the learned Munsif as early as possible. IN view of what has been stated above, the impugned order is hereby confirmed and the present revisional application is hereby rejected. 6. SEND copy of this order to the learned Munsif as early as possible. Xerox copies of his order may also be made available to the parties on usual undertaking given. Application rejected.