JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. CAN 1 of 2019 is disposed of as no question about condonation of delay in filing the present application attracts in the present context.

2. Being aggrieved by an order dated 24.06. 2019 passed by the learned Chief Judge Small Causes Court at Calcutta in the Ejectment Suit No. 351 of 2018, present revisional application has been preferred. By the said impugned order the learned Trial Court was pleased to reject defendants petition under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997(hereinafter referred to ‘the said Act of 1997’ in short).

3. The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is that, a suit was filed by the opposite party Bholanath Kundu as plaintiff for recovery of Khas possession damage and/or mesne profit against the petitioner/defendant claiming that plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the suit property. The defendant is a monthly tenant under the plaintiff at a rent of Rs.1600/-per month initially which according to defendant subsequently enhanced to Rs.1680/-per month in pursuance of tenancy agreement dated 01.04.2014 made by and between the parties. In the said suit for ejectment, the defendants filed written statement. In the plaint it is alleged that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent since April, 2017. The defendant filed application under Section Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997.

4. It is submitted that the defendant paid rent to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 1600/-per month up to March, 2016, thereafter from April, 2016 whenever the petitioner/tenant went to pay the monthly rent, the landlord refused to accept the rent. The defendant in order to prove his bona fide intention, sent total arrear rent from April, 2016 to August, 2018 through money order at a time along with rent for the month of September, 2018 to the landlord who refused to accept the same. Since September, 2018 the defendant has paid rent up to the current month before the Rent Controller. On 25.01.2019 i.e. on the very next day of appearance before the Court below, the petitioner/defendant filed petitions under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997, for permitting him to deposit rent month by month. According to the defendant/petitioner he never defaulted in payment of rent.

5. The plaintiff/opposite party filed written objection against the said petitions under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 filed by defendant/petitioner.

6. The learned Trial Court considering the written objection of opposite party has rejected the said two petitions under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997. It is submitted on behalf of the defendant/petitioner that only one day delay has been caused in respect of filing aforesaid two applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 but the learned Trial Court became hyper technical in regard to period of limitation for filing the said two applications, while rejecting the same.

7. The petitioner/defendant’s further contention is that he received the summon of the suit on 24.12.2018 and appeared before the Court on 24.01.2019 and he filed said two applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 on 25.01.2019 and the Trial Court ought to have considered sympathetically said two applications wherein delay of only one day has been caused and as such the defendant/petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and to allow the petitioner/defendant to deposit the rent month by month by allowing his application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997.

8. On perusal of the order impugned dated 24.06.2019 it appears that the specific observation of the learned Trial Court is that defendant/petitioner Avishek Singh had received summon of the suit which was sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgement due Card on 14.12.2018 and not on 24.12.2018 as claimed by the defendant and it has been reflected from the postal stamp affixed on the reverse side of Acknow