IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the inapplicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated November 22, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 7th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.593 of 2022.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). The application for condonation was filed by the defendant/opposite party on September 15, 2022.

3. The learned court below was of the view that although the application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act was filed after one month from the receipt of summons and the specific statutory period was not complied with, the delay should be condoned as the tenant was not to be blamed. The omission of the learned advocate to take steps within time, was a good ground to condone the delay caused in filing the applications under the said Act.

4. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the landlord/petitioner submits that the learned court did not have any jurisdiction to condone the delay of even one day. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) did not have any existence in the eye of law, until the delay was condoned. Moreover, the application for condonation of delay was filed in September 15, 2022. Reference is made to the order impugned as also the statement of the defendant in order to establish such fact.

5. Mr. Seth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that the conduct of the tenant should be taken into consideration. He relies on a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court passed in C.O. 3852 of 2010. Mr. Seth further relies on a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Bahadur Singh Kathotia versus Smt. Purabi Basu passed in C.O.2575 of 2022.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the only issue to be decided in this revisional application is whether the learned court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act.

7. Coming to the facts of this case, there is no dispute with regard to the admitted position that the suit was one for eviction under the provision of Section 6 of the said Act. Ground of default was one of the grounds for eviction. The summons were served on June 28, 2022. The petitioner appeared on August 3, 2022. The applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act was filed on the same day, without any application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on September 15, 2022.

8. In the application under Section 7(1) of the said Act, the petitioner stated that monthly rent was paid to the landlord upto July 2021. Suddenly the landlord refused to accept the rent from August 2021. The petitioner tried to pay the rent through money order on September 15, 2021 but the same was refused. The petitioner filed a misc. case being No.168 of 2021 on October 5, 2021 before the rent controller, Howrah in terms of Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The application was pending, so the learned court should pass necessary orders allowing deposit of Rs.4730/- as admitted rent from the month of August 2021 and onwards, if the matter was not heard by the rent controller. In my view, the opposite party failed to comply with the provision of Section 7(1). Not only was there delay in filing the application, but the other requirements of the provisions were also not complied with. Similar averments were made in the application under Section 7(2), without fulfilling the statutory mandate.

9. The law provides a complete mechanism to be availed of by a tenant i