1. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Srivastava and the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Partha Datta appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Md. Manzurul Haque. Considered the materials on record.

2. The tenant defendant as the petitioner has made this application under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging Order No. 43, dated 4.5.95 passed by the learned Munsif. 2nd Court, Sealdah, 24-Parganas (South), in Title Suit No. 500 of 1990, whereby the learned Munsif rejected the application of the tenant defendant made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for condonation of delay in depositing the rent, on a finding that the Court has no jurisdiction to condone such delay as the deposit has been made before the Rent Controller. So, the entire question in this revision centres round the question of jurisdiction. Before dealing with that, a short recital of the fact leading to this revision is necessary to be enumerated. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the tenant under the opposite party in respect of the property in suit at a monthly rental of Rs.700/-. For the purpose of evicting th