IMPORTANT POINT
Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for condoning delays in applications under Section 7(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act, as compliance with specific statutory requirements is mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated 2nd September, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit no. 433 of 2022.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stood rejected. Consequently, the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was rejected on the ground that the same were not filed within the stipulated period.

3. Opposite party herein filed a suit for eviction inter alia on the ground of reasonable requirement. Petitioner filed the applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “W.B.P.T. Act, 1997”). Petitioner also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid application.

4. Opposite party contested the said application by filing written objection raising the point of maintainability of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in connection with an application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997.

5. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997 was rejected.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has filed this Civil Revision Application.

7. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that if the tenant disputes the amount of rent payable by him upon the suit being instituted under Section 6 of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997, the tenant has a right to get such dispute adjudicated by filing an application under Section 7(2) of the said Act. He further submitted that by virtue of Section 40 of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997, the Limitation Act 1963 had been made applicable to the proceedings under the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997. He also submitted that since the provisions of Section 7(2) of the said Act contemplates filing of an application, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall be applicable to condone any delay in filing such application in view of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. He contended that in the absence of any express exclusion of applicability of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act at the stage of filing of application under Section 7(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997, the Court has the power to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 7(2) of the said Act. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Singh and ors. vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya and another reported at (2019) 10 SCC 660 was passed in ignorance of the provisions of Section 40 of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997 and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. He contended that the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be said to be a binding precedent as the same was passed in ignorance of the aforesaid statutory provision. He submitted that even the High Court can declare a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be per incuriam. In support of the contention that the decision in Bijay Kumar Singh (supra) is per incuriam, he placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Another reported at (1988) 2 SCC 602, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported at (2017) 16 SCC 680, Dr. Shah Faesal and Others vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2020) 4 SCC 1, Secretary to Government of Kerala, Irrigation Department and Others vs. James Varghese and Others reported at (2022) 9 SCC 593. Mr. Chatterjee also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukri Gopalan vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker reported at (1995) 5 SCC 5 in support of his contenti