JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. CAN 1/2021 relates to application for substitution of legal heirs of respondent No. 1, since deceased and CAN 2/2021 relates to application for condonation of delay in preferring the present revisional application. Both the applications are allowed and disposed of on consent given by the parties.

2. Since C.O. 1229/2021 and C.O. 571/2020 arising out of same proceeding being T.S. 204/2016 and having involved similar type of question of law and fact between the same parties, both the revisional applications are hereby disposed of by this common order. In C.O. 1229/2021 the revisionist/petitioner who is defendant/tenant in a suit for eviction, being aggrieved by order No. 42 dated 06.04.2021 passed in aforesaid Title Suit No. 204/2016 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court Barasat, North 24 Parganas, preferred said revisional application. By the impugned order dated 06.04.2021 learned trial court was pleased to reject applications under section 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as WBPT Act 1997), as defendants neither taken any step nor appeared before the court on repeated call, when the case was called on for hearing.

3. On the other hand being aggrieved by order No. 28 dated 29.03.2019 passed in self same Title Suit no. 204/2016, by the same Civil Judge (Junior 1st divisions) court Barasat, North 24 Parganas, plaintiff/revisionist filed revisional application being C.O. 571/2020. Here by the impugned order learned Trial Court after going through the petition and written objection and also after hearing the submissions made by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the rigour of section 2(g) of WBPT Act 1997 is not applicable in the instant case, with regard to fact as alleged by the plaintiff.

4. The fact as set out is that opposite party/plaintiff instituted suit for eviction being Title Suit No. 204/2016 against defendant before the 1st Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Barasat praying for decree of ‘khas’ possession of suit property. Thereafter on 22.02.2017 the defendant/petitioner of C.O. 1229/2021 filed applications under sections 7 (1) and 7(2) of the said act. By 1st the impugned order No. 42 dated 06.04.2021 Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Barasat by passing the impugned order was pleased to reject and disposed of defendant/petitioners application under section 7(1) and 7(2).

5. Mr. Mukhopadhyay learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the application filed by the defendant/petitioner under section 7(1)and 7(2) of the said act should have been heard and disposed of on merit but the impugned order shows that the order is capricious, arbitrary and perverse and also devoid of any reason . He ought to have allowed applications under section 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997 filed by the petitioners/defendants. He further submits that if any delay has been caused in filing the said application, it was due to Covid Pandemic situation and as such trial court should have condoned the delay and allowed those petitions.

6. Mr. Chakraborty Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that in view of settled position of law, section 5 of the Limitation Act has got no application in respect of petitions filed by the petitioner under section 7 of the Act.

7. On perusal of record it appears that the suit being T.S. No. 204/2016 was filed by opposite party/plaintiff on 28.03.2016. It further appears from the admission made by petitioner/defendant in his application under section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act that defendant No. 1 received summon on 29.06.2016 and defendant no. 2 to 6 received summon on 31.08.2016 and filed written statement on 29.09.2016. However, from the copy of application it appears that defendant filed said application under sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act along with an application under section 5 of the limitation Act on 22.02.2017 i.e. long after the statutory