Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- On November 27, 1962 respondents filed a suit for eviction against the appellant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ("The Act") on the ground that the appellant was in arrears of rent, that he had sub-let the premises and that the respondents required the premises for their personal use. The summons of the suit was served on the appellant on Jan. 9, 1963 and he deposited the arrears of rent within a period of thirty days thereafter i.e. on February 5, 1963. On July 10, respondents filed an application under S. 17 (3) of the Act for striking off the defence of the appellant on the ground that though the appellant had deposited the arrears of rent, he had not deposited the interest due on the arrears, as required by S. 17 (1) of the Act. By an order dated July 25, 1963 the trial court accepted the respondents contention and struck of the appellants defence. On August 26, 1963 the appellant filed a civil revision application in the Calcutta High Court against that order but it was dismissed by the High Court on April 4, 1968.

2. Between August 26, 1963 when the appellant filed the revision application in the High Court and April 4, 1968 when the revision application was dismissed, certain important events happened. On August 26, 1967 an Ordinance was passed by the West Bengal Government by which a new section, namely, S. 17B was introduced into the Act. By that section, tenants were given the right, if the proceeding for eviction was not yet disposed of, to apply within thirty days of the commencement of the Ordinance, for setting aside the order striking off the defence. On the expiry of that Ordinance, another Ordinance containing identical provisions was passed on January 8, 1968. This Ordinance was replaced on March 26, 1968 by Presidents Act 4 of 1968. Section 17-B which was inserted in the Act by the two ordinances was numbered as S. 17-A under the Presidents Act, the provisions of the section remaining unaltered. Section 1 (2) of the Presidents Act provided that the said Act shall be deemed to have come into force on August 26, 1967 which was the date on which the first Ordinance had come into force.

3. After the dismissal of the revision application on April 4, 1968, the appellant filed an application on May 3, 1968 in the trial Court under S. 17-A, praying that the order dated July25, 1963 passed by it, striking off his defence be set aside. It ought to be mentioned that though the trial Court had passed the order striking off the appellants defence as long back as in 1963, the eviction suit filed by the respondents continued to remain on the file because, on September 16, 1963 the High Court in the revision application filed by the appellant had issued an order staying all further proceedings in the suit. Along with the application under S. 17-A, the appellant filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 praying that the delay caused infilling the application may for reasons stated therein be condoned. Both the applications were dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated August 17, 1968 which was confirmed by the Calcutta High Court in revision on June 3, 1969. Being agrieved by the judgment of the High Court in Civil Rule No. 2924 of 1968, the tenant has preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court.

4. The High Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under S. 17-A of the Act on the ground that it was not filed within 30 days of August 26, 1967 when the first Ordinance came into force and further on the ground that since S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had no application to the proceeding, the Court had no power to condone the delay. It is patent that the application under S. 17-A was not filed within the prescribed period of thirty days. The sole question for decision, therefore, is whether the provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act can apply to an application under S. 17-A of the Act.

5. Section 5 of the Limitation Act prov