An application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 must be filed within one month from the date of appearance of the tenant and must be preceded by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay if filed beyond the limitation period.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. Questioning the propriety of the order No. 28 dated 21st September, 2015 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Serampore, Hooghly in T.S. 4501/2014 (T.S. 134/2014), the petitioner herein stated that in the order impugned while dealing with the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the learned Trial Court allowed the same and directed the defendant/opposite party to make deposit the arrears of payment to the tune of Rs.5,577/- in two equal monthly installments.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such direction, by way of allowing the application under Section 7(2) of the Act, the present revisional application has been preferred.

4. Section 7(2) of the Act prescribed that if in any suit for eviction of tenant under this Act, if there is any dispute of the rent payable by the tenant, the tenant shall, within the time specified in that sub-section, deposit with the Civil Judge the amount admitted by him to be due from him together with an application for determination of the rent payable. This section also provides that no such deposit shall be accepted unless it is accompanied by an application for determination of the rent payable and such payment or deposit shall be made within one month of the service of summons on the tenant or where he appears in the suit without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his appearance.

5. At the very outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the order impugned wherein the learned Trial Court while disposing of the application under Section 7(2) of the Act observed that the petitioner under Section 7(2) of the Act was filed before him after the expiry of six months from the date of his appearance, though he ought to have failed the same within one month and drawing my attention to the provision of Section 40 of the said Act, he pointed out that the defendant/opposite party did not prefer to file any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing such application within stipulated period (i.e. one month from the date of his appearance). Clarifying the provision of Section 7(2) of the said Act, he pointed out that the learned Trial Court while disposing of the said application under Section 7(2) of the Act did not consider the maintainability of the application, since it was not preceded by any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

6. In this context, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 2014 SC 746 (Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer) and pointed out that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the Court as to what was the sufficient cause (which means an adequate and enough reason) which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. He also pointed out that the Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay and the application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by Court in regard to the condonation of delay by showing sufficient ground which is opposed equitable grounds.

7. The learned counsel for the opposite party herein while opposing the revisional application admitted with all fairness that the petition under Section 7(2) of the Act was filed as expeditiously as possible but after lapse of about six months and on the strength of the order impugned, his client made deposit of the arrears of rent by two installments, as directed. Supporting findings of learned Trial Court while dealing with the application under Section 7(2) of the Act, he submitted that the delay in filing the application was condoned by learned Trial Court in the order impugned taking into consideration, the provision of the beneficial legislation to protect the interest of the tenant so that the cause of justice is sub-served.

8. In this context, whil