IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are mandatory and required to be scrupulously followed by the tenant, and failure to deposit the admitted arrears of rent within the prescribed period renders the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of no avail.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the opposite party in support and against the instant revisional application.

2. The present case is now taken up for passing appropriate order.

3. In this revisional application as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the revisionist being the plaintiff/landlord in a suit for eviction of the tenant has assailed the order No. 64 dated 07.05.2022 as passed in O.S. No. 250 of 2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Sadar Paschim Medinipur, whereby and whereunder the said court in the said suit for eviction under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1997) has been pleased to allow the defendant/tenant’s application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 holding the amount of arrears of rent together with statutory interest to the tune of Rs. 20,460/- which according to the learned trial court had already been deposited by the defendant with a further direction upon the defendant/tenant to go on depositing Rs. 100/- towards rent from the month of June, 2022 till disposal of the said suit.

4. The plaintiff of the said suit for eviction felt aggrieved and thus, preferred the instant revisional application.

5. In course of his submission, Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist/plaintiff/landlord draws attention of this Court to the photocopy of the petition under Section 7(1)(c), photocopy of the petition under Section 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 along with the photocopy of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as have been filed by the defendant/opposite party before the learned trial court. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the order dated 23.06.2016 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench in CO 2569 of 2015 with CO 2254 of 2015.

6. In course of his submission, Mr. Das submits before this Court that on conjoint perusal of the copy of the petition under Section 7(1)(c) and Section 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 and copy of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it would reveal that the defendant/tenant who is the opposite party before this Court has failed to pay to the plaintiff or deposited with the trial court, the admitted arrears of rent till the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum within one month from the date of receipt of summons of the said suit.

7. It is further argued that for the said reason, the defendant/tenant before the trial court had come forward with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in depositing such admitted arrears of rent. Drawing attention to the order dated 23.06.2016, as passed in CO 2569 of 2015 with CO 2254 of 2015 by the co-ordinate Bench, it is contended that though the said co-ordinate Bench by the said order dated 23.06.2016 set aside the previous order of the trial court with regard to its finding while disposing the petitions under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 together with Section 5 of the Limitation Act but by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the co-ordinate Bench allowed the defendant/tenant’s application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act though in the said order, a direction was passed directing the defendant/tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the suit within two weeks from the date of passing of the said order together with a cost of Rs. 3,000/-. It is further argued that the defendant/tenant before the trial court though deposited the said sum of Rs. 28,000/-(Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 3,000/-) but it was again a delayed deposit.

8. In support of the instant revisional application, Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/landlord/revisionist submits further that while passing the impugned order, learned trial court misdirected himself in holding that by the previous order da