The inherent power of a court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised if it is inconsistent with any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by other provisions of law.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Order no. 47 dated August 13, 2019, passed by learned Judge, 3rd Bench, Small Causes Court, Kolkata in Ejectment Suit No. 6752 of 2014, is the subject matter under challenge in the present Application. By the impugned order learned court below was pleased to allow defendant /tenants’ application under section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure dated March 20, 2019 seeking permission to deposit rent for the month of January 2019 to February 2019, which could not be deposited in time.

2. The petitioners case in brief is that petitioners herein filed aforesaid ejectment suit no. 6752 of 2014 interalia praying for decree of ejectment and delivery of “khas” possession of the suit premises against the opposite parties herein who are tenants in respect of suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 1940/-, payable according to English Calendar month. The defendant/tenants/opposite parties herein after receiving summon appeared in the said suit and filed application under section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (herein after called as Act of 1997). Plaintiff /petitioners filed written objection and learned court below had disposed of both the applications under section 7(1) and 7 (2) directing the opposite parties herein to deposit arrear rent and also to deposit current rent month by month.

3. Petitioners further case is on 14.09.2015 an application was filed on behalf of the opposite parties under section 151 of the code, wherein it was stated that the opposite parties deposited rent in terms of order passed under section 7(1) of the Act of 1997 up to the month of June 2015 and subsequent thereto the defendant no. 2 met with an accident and was bedridden and could not deposit rent for the month of July, 2015 and as such opposite party should be allowed to deposit rent from July, 2015 and thereafter month by month after condoning the delay. Said prayer was allowed by the court below.

4. Thereafter opposite parties/tenants filed another application under section 151 of the code on March, 2019 interalia stating that on 17.01.2019 while filing the affidavit of evidence of the defendants’ witness no. 1, all documents including civil deposit challan for the month of December, 2019 was submitted before the court below by the said witness but due to non-production of civil deposit challan for the month of December, 2018 for verification, the rent for the month of January 2019 and February 2019 could not be deposited within time and again prayed before the court below by the impugned application for passing appropriate order allowing the opposite parties to deposit the monthly rent for the month of January 2019 to February 2019 and thereafter month by month. The petitioners herein filed written objection against the said application and also prayed for dismissal of the same.

5. Petitioners contended, learned court below while disposing the aforesaid prayer made under section 151 of the code, passed the impugned order thereby allowed the said application misconstruing the objection raised by the petitioners herein. Mr. Samanta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the court below failed to appreciate the scope, meaning and purport of section 7(1) and section 7(2) of the Act of 1997. Learned court below failed to appreciate that no cogent and plausible reason was given by the opposite parties for defaulting in payment of rent for the month of January 2019 and February 2019. In fact court below committed miscarriage of justice by allowing the application under section 151 of the code. Court below failed to appreciate that there is no scope for the court below to extend time or to condone delay in making deposit under section 7 (1) of the Act. He further failed to appreciate that the benefits conferred under section 7 of the Act could be enjoyed by the tenant only on strict compliance of the statutory provisions. In fact court below exercising jurisdiction