JUDGMENT :

Subhasis Dasgupta, J.

The impugned order dated 11th September, 2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Barasat, rejecting the application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, is the subject of challenge in this revisional application.

2. Learned court below rejected the application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 on the ground that petitioner/defendant admittedly caused delay of ten months in filing such applications, which were not even supported by any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condonation of delay, and as such there was infraction of law so far as compliance of statutory procedure is concerned.

3. Admittedly, in a suit instituted in the year 2014, the tenant/defendant/petitioner entered his appearance in the suit by furnishing vakalatnama on 09.02.2016. Subsequently, on 14.12.2016, the petitioner/defendant/petitioner furnished his written statement along with application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

4. In order to perfectly understand the matter in issue in connection with application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act, some of the salient facts may be mentioned as hereunder.

5. The petitioner was inducted tenant in respect of one shop room by the erstwhile landlord, Pritosh Pal at the rent of Rs.200/- per month, payable according to English calendar month. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs.352/- per month. For the refusal to receive the rent tendered by the tenant/petitioner, a proceeding under Section 21(1) and (2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was intiated before the Rent Controller, Barasat, which was registered as RC Case No. 14 of 2005. The erstwhile tenant being the father of the opposite party No.1 and husband of opposite party No. 2, challenged the maintainability of such proceeding before Rent Controller denying the relationship of petitioner/tenant. The opposite party No.1 being son of the erstwhile tenant, solicited intervention of the High Court in connection with pending case before the Rent Controller in connection with C.O.No.233 of 2006, when the High Court granted stay of proceedings of the Rent Controller on 28th August, 2006. The erstwhile tenant admittedly left this world in the year 2011.

6. In view of the ad interim order of stay being granted by High Court in connection with C.O. No.233 of 2006, the petitioner was confused for the ill advice of his conducting learned advocate and quite rendered himself unable to deposit rent. The case of the petitioner is that after the demise of erstwhile tenant, no notice was issued upon the petitioner providing sufficient opportunity to deposit the rent in the name of the persons, who actually inherited the suit building, being legal heirs of the erstwhile tenant, Paritosh Pal. Suddenly, petitioner/defendant received a notice from the court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 1st Court, Barasat furnishing sufficient information about the institution of a suit against him in connection with T.S. No.667 of 2013, with a direction requiring the petitioner to ensure his appearance on 13th March, 2014. It was the further case of petitioner that being ill-advised by the conducting learned advocate requiring the petitioner not to do anything, because of the stay order being granted by the High Court, no step could be taken admittedly by the petitioner for depositing rent as well as for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Since, petitioner is a poor man having no legal background, blindly followed the instruction, given by his conducting learned advocate. Somehow, the petitioner came to learn that the pending suit in connection with T.S. No. 667 of 2013 had been posted for ex-parte hearing by order dated 14th December, 2016. The petitioner, thereafter, got his previous learned advocate changed obtaining no objection and filed a fresh vakalatnama, app