Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.
Bahadur Singh Kathotia - Appellant
Versus
Purabi Basu - Respondent
C.O. No. 2575 of 2022
Decided On : 17-02-2023
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT - SECTION 7(1) AND 7(2) - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - SUB-SILENCIO DOCTRINE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - RENT CONTROL ACTS - OBJECT AND PURPOSE: 1. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, provides a mechanism for tenants to avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent by depositing arrears of rent and filing an application for determination of the disputed amount within one month from the date of receipt of summons or within one month of appearance before the Court. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya held that the deposit of rent along with an application for determination of dispute is a pre-condition to avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and that the Limitation Act is not applicable to seek condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 7(2) of the Act. 3. However, in the present case, the Court observed that certain arguments were not advanced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Singh (supra) and applied the doctrine of sub-silencio to hold that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case is not an authority for the proposition that the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 4. The Court further held that the object and purpose of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is to protect tenants against unreasonable eviction and collection of excessive rents, and that reasonable opportunity should be given to the tenant to comply with the conditions for protection under Section 7 of the Act. 5. Accordingly, the Court allowed the revisional application, set aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the petitions under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to dispose of the petitions in accordance with law after condoning the delay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a defendant in an eviction suit, filed a revisional application challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting his petitions under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, on the ground of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and that the delay in filing the petitions under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act could be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 2. Whether the delay in filing the petitions under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, could be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, as Section 40 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to proceedings and appeals under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 2. The Court further held that the delay in filing the petitions under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, could be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner was 72 years old, suffering from blood cancer, and appeared in Court on March 31, 2021, during the pandemic period.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revisional application, set aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the petitions under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to dispose of the petitions in accordance with law after condoning the delay.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner before this Court is a defendant in a Suit for Eviction and is aggrieved by the Order dated 26-07-2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge Junior Division 3rd Additional Court Alipore South-24 Parganas in Ejectment Suit 276 of 2019.
The case of the petitioner/defendant may be summed up thus:-
1. The opposite party as plaintiff filed a suit for eviction recovery of Khas Possession and mesne profit against the defendant/petitioner before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Additional Court at Alipore South 24 Parganas.
2. The petitioner received the summons in the month of December 2019, and entered appearance in the suit on 30-03- 2021 and filed application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act 1997.
3. The petitioner apart from filing application under Section 7(1) of the premises Tenancy Act 1997 also filed application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy on 22-07- 2021.
4. The applications filed by the petitioner under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was contested by opposite party/plaintiff by filing written objection.
5. By Order dated 26-07-2022 the Learned Trial Court rejected the petitions under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with this Revisional Application.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the Learned Trial Court acted illegally in not adjudicating the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for noncompliance with application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by overlooking the reasons assigned by the petitioner in the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also contended that the Learned Trial Court acted illegally in deciding the applications in isolation of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Learned Advocate for the opposite party. Perused the petition filed and materials on record.
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear on the date fixed and as the petitioner is suffering from blood cancer and due to the ongoing pandemic could not contest the Suit but he appeared on 30/03/2021 and filed written statement, as well as an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure Learned Advocate further submits that although the petitioner filed petition under Section 7(1) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 within one month from the date of his appearance, the Learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the application on the ground of limitation. Learned Advocate further submits that his client is suffering from blood cancer and due on ongoing pandemic he was unable to attend Court but on the date of appearance his client has filed written statement and thereafter the petitions under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997. Learned Advocate submits that as his client made application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 within one month from date of appearance his applications ought not to have been rejected on the ground of limitation.
Learned Advocate for the opposite party submits that as the petitioner has admitted to have received summons in the month of December 2019, it was obligatory on his part to appear within one month from date of receiving summons, and deposit rent and file the applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997. Learned Advocate for the opposite party relies upon the following Judicial decisions:
Bijoy Kumar Singh and Others Vs Amit Kumar Chamariya and Others, Reported in 2020 (1) Indian Civil Cases 664 (S.C)
Smt Papiya Sengupta and Ors. Vs Sri Suvasis Ghosh, Reported in 2020(1) Indi
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the statutory provisions outlined in Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the inapplicability o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the inapplicability of Section 5 of the Limi....
Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for condoning delays in applications under Section 7(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act, as compliance with specific statutory requirements is mandatory.
The court affirmed that compliance with mandatory timelines in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is essential for tenants to avoid eviction due to non-payment of rent.
(1) Multiple dying declarations – All dying declarations should be consistent – Inconsistencies between such statements should be ‘material’ for its credibility to be shaken.(2) General rule for appr....
The court affirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to applications under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, allowing for extensions under specific conditions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
