JUDGMENT 1. THIS revisional application is at the instance of a tenant/defendant in a suit for "eviction and is directed against Order No. 55 dated December 23, 1997 passed by the learned trial Judge thereby disposing of an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act along with an issue as to the existence of relationship of landlord" and tenant between the parties. By order impunged, the learned Trial Judge has held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the peritioner is a defaulter in payment of rent 2. THE present opposite party claiming to be a transferee landlord filed the aforesaid suit for eviction being Title Suit No. 95 of. 1995 on the grounds of default in payment of rent, causing damage, sub-letting and reasonable requirement. The case made out by the opposite party was that one Onkarnath 2. was the previous owner and landlord of the present petitioner, who died leaving his niece Aparna and nephew Asharam as the sole heirs. The petitioner purchased the suit property initially from Apama by way of a sale deed dated January 7. 1991. According to Aparna, Asharam died bachelor and as such on the death of Asharam. she had inheritted the 8 annas share of Asharam in the suit property and thus became absolute owner. Subsequently, the opposite party came to know that Asharam died leaving his widow Mayarani and three children. Although Aparna did not recognise Mayarani as the widow of Asharam, the opposite party for abundant precaution also purchased the share of Asharam's heirs through mayarani by virtue of a sale deed dated February 21, 1992. By the said sale deed Mayarani far herself and as natural guardian to her three children sold away the entire interest of Asharam for alleged legal necessity. Subsequently, two of the aforesaid three children viz. Siddhartha and Indranil executed a Nabadi deed dated February 2, 1995 which was registered on May 12. 1995 thereby endorsing the sale of their mother. 3. AFTER entering appearance in the suit the present petitioner filed an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act thereby disputing the relationship of landlord an tenant between the parties and according to the petitioner Onkarnath executed a registered will bequeathing the suit proprty to Asharam by excluding Aparna. 3. AFTER entering appearance in the suit the present petitioner filed an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act thereby disputing the relationship of landlord an tenant between the parties and according to the petitioner Onkarnath executed a registered will bequeathing the suit proprty to Asharam by excluding Aparna. According to the petitioner by sale deed from Aparna, the opposite party no. 1 acquired no interest of the property. As regards the sale deed executed by Mayarani the case of the petitioner is that by virtue of the said deed only Mayarani's 1/4th share can be conveyed in favour of the opposite party inasmuch as subsequently on attaining majority Siddhartha and Indranil bad sold away their interest in the property in favour of one Seem Bhaskar. the daughter of the petitioner. The further case made out by the petitioner is that subsequently the other child viz. Jayasree on attaining majority sold away her 1/4th share in the property in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed which has been registered on january 13. 1998 after the passing of the order impugned in this application. 4. THEREFORE, according to the petitioner, her daughter had obtained 8 annas share in the property and he himself has purchased 4 annas shane in the property. The fore, the suit filed by the opposite party having 4 annas share was not maintainable. 4. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record held that the opposite party became absolute owner of the property by virtue of his sale deeds from Aparna and Mayarani and subsequent Nabadi deed from two children of Mayarani and therefore was entitled to maintain the suit for eviction. 5. BEING dissatisfied, the tenant has come up in revision. 6. MR. Das, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant has firstly contended that in view of the registered will executed by onkarnath bequeathing the property in favour of Asharam, Aparna cannot have any share in the property and as such the opposite party got no title of the property by virtue of sale deed through Aparna. Mr. Das next contends that sale deed executed by Mayarani for herself and on behalf of her three minor children would at best convey 1/4th share in the property in favour of the opposite party. According to Mr. Mr. Das next contends that sale deed executed by Mayarani for herself and on behalf of her three minor children would at best convey 1/4th share in the property in favour of the opposite party. According to Mr. Das, the said sale deed having been executed without any legal necessity and without taking any consent of the learned District Judge was invalid in view of section 8 (3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act According to Mr. Das, his Client's daughter having subsequently purchased the share of other two children of Mayarani. the suit filed by a person having only 1/4th share in the property is not maintainable and as such the order passed by the learned Trial Judge is on the face of erroneous 7. MR. Roychowdhury, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has on the other hand refuted the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Das and has contended that the so called will executed by Onkarnath cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of a probate by any competent court of law. Therfore according to Mr. Roychowdhury by virtie of sale deed from Aprana his clint acquired at least half share in the property even if it is assumed that Mayarani was the lawful wife of Asharam. As regards the second contention of Mr. Das accroding to Mr. Roychowdhury a deed executed by a mother on behalf of minor children without taking leave form court is not a void document but a voidable one to be avoided by such minor within three year from the date of attaining majority as provided in Article 60 of the Liqitation Act. Accrodini to Mr. Roychowdhury in the instant case no such suit has been filed by either of the aforesaid three children and as such by the said deed his client has got title over the Asharam's 8 annas share. 8. MR. Das In reply to the aforesaid submission of Mr. Roychowdhury strongly relied upon two decisions of Kerala High Court reported in air 1972 Kerala page 71 and AIR 1962 Kerala page 164, in support of his contention that there is no necessity of filing a suit by a minor after attaining majority in order to avoid a sale. According to Mr. Das by mere conduct a minor after attaining majority can repudiate a sale deed executed by his natural guardian. Mr. According to Mr. Das by mere conduct a minor after attaining majority can repudiate a sale deed executed by his natural guardian. Mr. Das contends that those three minors after attaining majority having sold their respective shares in the property, such acts of the minors amount to repudiation of the sale deed of their mother executed during their minority. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I find that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the order impugned. 9. SO far the first point of Mr. Das is concerned, I agree with Mr. Roychowdhury that unless and probate is obtained of the so called will alleged to have been executed by Onkarnath, by mere production of the certified copy of the will, it could not be contended that Aparna had no share in the property. Therefore, by virtue of sate deed through Aparna, the plaintiff had acquired half share in the suit property. I ara however not willing to accept the contention of Mr. Das that Mayarani was not the lawful wife of Asharam in the absence of any direct evidence to that effect. 10. AS regards the second contention Of Mr. Das, the law is now settled that if a natural guardian transfers the share of the minor without legal necessity or without taking leave of court, such transaction is not void ob initio but merely a voidable one which can be avoided by the minors after attaining majority. In my opinion, Mr. Roychowdhury is right in his contention that such deed can be avoided by the minors only by filing a suit within 3 years after attaining majority and not by their mere conduct as held by the Kerala High Court in the aforesaid two decisions. In my opinion, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amritham kudumboh vs. Sarnam Kudumbah reported in AIR 1991 SC page 1256 as relied upon by Mr. Roychowdhury, such transaction must be avoided by filing a suit. The said two decisions of the Kerala High Court cannot be said to be good law in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. Roychowdhury, such transaction must be avoided by filing a suit. The said two decisions of the Kerala High Court cannot be said to be good law in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. In the instant case two of the children of Mayarani after attaining majority had executed Nabadi deeds wherein they specifically asserted that for the maintenance of the family, the mother was compelled to sell the property. Although subsequently they had executed separate sale deeds in favour of the daughter of the petitioner on February 14, 1995, there is no material to show that either they had or their transferee viz. the daughter of the petitioner has filed any suit within three years from the date of attaining majority of the aforesaid two sons. Therefore, the sale deed, executed by Mayarani transferring the shares of the aforesaid two sons has attained finality. So far the alleged sale by Jayasree, the third child of Mayarani is concerned, Mr. Das wanted to place a xerox copy of a birth certificate showing that the date of birth of Jayasree was January 2. 1979 and as such three years period after attaining majority has not yet expired. In view of the fact that the said document was not produced before the learned trial court, this court is not in a position to take into consideration the said document. Moreover, it is nobody's case that till today either Jayasree or the petitioner has filed any suit challenging the deed excuted by Mayarani so far the transfer of share of Jayasree is concerned. Therefore, so long the said deed is not avoided by a declaration given by a competent court, the said sale deed executed by Mayarani stand. 11. MR. Das lastly contended that Siddhartha, the eldest child of mayarani was major at the time of execution of the sate deed by Mayarani in favour of the opposite party and thus by the said deed the opposite party did not acquire the share of Siddhartha. In my view, Such point is not tenable inasmuch as in the Nabadi deed executed by Siddhartha, he specifically said that he was minor at the time of execution of the sale deed. The petitioner having relied upon the title of his daughter through Siddhartha it was his duty to examine Siddhartha for falsifying the statement made in the Nabadi deed. The petitioner having relied upon the title of his daughter through Siddhartha it was his duty to examine Siddhartha for falsifying the statement made in the Nabadi deed. In the absence of such evidence, such plea is not available to the petitioner. 12. THEREFORE, the learned Trial Judge rightly held that by virtue of sale deeds executed by Aparna and Mayarani the petitioner became full owner of the property and as such was entitled to maintain the suit. Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party also contended that even if it is assumed that the petitioner obtained 2 annas share from Jayasree by virtue of such purchase, the tenancy cannot come to an end by merger and as such the remaining 1. 4 annas owner can very much file a suit for eviction of the petitioner, who is a tenant in respect of the property. In my opinion, the said question does not arise for consideration unless in a suit filed by Jayasree or by Jayasree's transferee viz. the petitioner it is declared that the deed executed by Mayarani did not convey the title of Jayasree in favour of the opposite party. 13. IN view of what has been stated above, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the order impugned and as such 1 do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. 14. HOWEVER, although t am dismissing the revisional application, I am extending ,the time for depositing all arrears of rent calculated by the learned Trial Judge by two months from date and if such amount is deposited within, the aforesaid time, the same should be treated as in complianc with the order passed under section 17 (2) of the Act. The revisional application is thus dismissed with above observation. In the fact and circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Revision disallowed.