This revisional application is directed against the order no. 62 dated 4th February, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 144 of 2010, by which an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant/petitioner is rejected. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit for eviction of a monthly tenant, inter alia, on the ground of default envisaged under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Admittedly the summons of the suit was served on the defendnat/petitioner on 8th October, 2010. The defendant entered appearance on November 26, 2010 and filed an application under Sections 7 (1) and 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 in the suit. The defendant further filed a written statement on March 10, 2011 when the aforesaid applications were still pending.

The Court took up the application under Section 7 (1) of the said Act on 20th August, 2013 and disposed of the same on consent of the parties by allowing the petitioner to deposit the arrears rent with statutory interest within the stipulated period.

Admittedly the petitioner did not deposit the amount in terms of the said order until 13th May, 2014, when prayer was sought for passing the challans and the Court permitted the defendant to deposit the said amount at his own risk. The moment it was realized that the said amount is not deposited strictly either in terms of Section 7 (1) of the said Act or in terms of the order disposing of the application under the said provision, another application captioned as an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was taken out seeking condonation of delay in making belated deposits.

By the impugned order the Court held that the petitioner was negligent in depositing the rent and further observed that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable.

Mr. Pratik Prakash Banerjee, the learned advocate appearing for the defendant/petitioner, submits that the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to a proceeding under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and the Court is not powerless to condone the delay for depositing the rent beyond the statutory period. He further submits that the order passed under Section 7 (1) of the said Act was never communicated by the learned advocate to his client and immediately after being apprised of such fact, the deposit has been made and, therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have taken a stringent and harsh view in condoning the delay in depositing the rent.

Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, learned Senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/opposite parties, submits that the order under Section 7 (1) of the said Act was passed in presence of both the parties by consent. The Court permitted the defendant/petitioner to deposit the rent within the time indicated therein. He strenuously submits that the grounds assigned in the application for condonation of delay is not proper and sufficient and it cannot be said that there was any laches on the part of the learned advocate of the defendant in not communicating the order. He thus submits that the Trial Court after considering the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have exercised discretion in rejecting the same, which should not be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Lastly he submits that the conduct of the petitioner is such, which does not require lenient approach in the matter and prays for dismissal of the revisional application.

At the very outset this Court must record that the provisions contained under Section 7 (1) of the Act does not require any application to be made for compliance thereof. It is a statutory duty cast on the tenant to take steps under the aforesaid provisions after entering appearance upon service of summons or where summons has not been served after recording appearance in the suit.

Th