The mandatory nature of the provisions under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the requirement for scrupulous compliance by the tenant to avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.

JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.9.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darjeeling in O.C. Eviction Suit No.7 of 2022 thereby dismissing the applications under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for permission to deposit the rent for the month of January, 2018 as well as the current rents and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay and to strike off the defense against the recovery of possession filed by the petitioners.

3. The petitioners are defendants and the respondents are plaintiffs in OC Eviction Case No.7 of 2022.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners on a very pedantic manner being oblivion of the settled position of law that when substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, it is the substantial justice that should prevail over technicalities. The learned counsel would submit that the Court below failed to appreciate the bonafide of the petitioners, inasmuch as they are ready and willing to deposit the rent for the month of January, 2018 had they been so advised. The petitioners have clearly made out a case of erroneous advice from their engaged counsel in depositing the arrears of rent from the month of February, 2018 instead of January, 2018. In such situation, the Court below ought not to have considered and appreciated the petitioners’ bonafide ignoring the mistake committed by their engaged counsel and ought to have granted the relief as prayed for by them.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners have been regularly paying the current rents as per law and no laches on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners should not have been made to suffer the rigour of the order as in the nature of the impugned order. Further, the Court below failed to appreciate that law does not debar the defendant in an eviction suit to deposit the arrears of rent voluntarily. However, the Court below rejected the petitioners’ prayer. In fact, the order under challenge has seriously prejudiced the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondents in their plaint clearly averred that the defendants have defaulted in payment of rent to the plaintiff on and from January, 2018 but the defendants have made payment since February, 2018. The learned counsel submitted that the defendants have clubbed the rent of November and December, 2022 which they have filed through challan on 1.12.2022 which is not permitted in the eye of law. The learned counsel submitted that considering the factual aspects of the matter coupled with the settled law, the Court below has rightly declined the relief prayed for by the petitioners. No valid grounds are made out to interfere with the said order. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the instant petition. In support, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following decisions/orders:

(i) Debasish Paul and another v. Amal Boral, 2023 (6) CTC 308.

(ii) Sukumar Sarkar and others v. Salil Kumar Chaktravarty, 1986(sup) R.C.R. (Rent) 83.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.

8. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the defendants have defaulted in payment of rent to the plaintiffs on and from January, 2018 and thus, the defendants have deprived the plaintiffs of their rightful money and the defendants have illegally enriched themselves staying free of cost in the suit schedule B property.

9. Pending suit, the petitioners/defendants took out application under Secti