IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to applications under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, allowing for extensions under specific conditions.

JUDGMENT :

(Subhendu Samanta, J.)

1. The instant Revisonal Application is preferred against order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Siliguri, rejecting the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act filed by the present petitioner/ defendant in O.C (eviction suit) No. 199 of 2022 filed by the present OP/ plaintiff.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present OP/ Plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of possession misne profit and other consequential relief before the Learned Civil Judge, concern against the present petitioner/defendant (tenant). The present petitioner receive the summon of the Court on 01.02.2023 wherein the date of appearance was mentioned as 04.02.2023. However, as per resolution of legal bar no steps were taken on that date and the present petitioner appeared before the Learned Civil Judge, concerned on 22.03.2023. Thereafter, on 09.05.2023 the present petitioner filed an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay for filing an application u/s 7(1) (a) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 and an application u/s 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997. The Learned Civil Judge, concern after hearing both sides passed the impugned order rejecting the application u/s- 5 of Limitation Act and consequently rejected the application u/s 7 (1) and Section 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997.

3. Hence this revision.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that impugned Order passed by the Learned Civil Judge, concern is illegal in the eye of law. He further submits that the Learned Civil Judge, concern should have allowed the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act and shall also the consequent applications u/s 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997. He further submits that though the Learned Civil Judge, concern as held that the Single Bench of this Court in CO 2575 of 2022 and CO No. 344 of 2022 has adopted the view that Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable and maintainable in an application u/s 7(1) and 7 (2) of the Act, but he rejected the application on some flimsy grounds.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has categorically argued the provisions of law in Section- 7(1) and 7(2) of WBPT Act- 1997 has emerged from the earlier West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 in Section 17(1) and 17(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred as “ Act 1956”). He argued that the said provision of Law was adopted in West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 under the Provisions of 7(1) (2) of the said Act 1997. He submits that the Division Bench of this court in Subrata Mukherjee Vs. Bishakha Das reported in 2011 SCC Online 5003 has adopted the view that the time limit fixed as mentioned in Sub Section 1 and 2 of Section 7 of 1997 Act to pay or deposit with the controller or the Civil Judge, of admitted arrears of rent together with interest, as mentioned in Clause- (b) thereto and consequently, the “time limit mentioned for this purpose as mentioned in Sub Section 2 is not inflexible and which can be extended by the court by virtue of Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963”.

6. He further submits that the Learned Civil Judge, has placed his reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bijay Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. Amit Kumar Chamaria and Ors Reported in (2019) 10 SCC 660.

He pointed out that, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kumar Chamaria (supra) has followed the decision of the three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Nasirudddin Vs. Sitaram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 557. He specifically argued that the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit kumar Chamaria does not properly followed the observation in Nasiruddin at paragraph 37.

37. The court's jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known that in a given case the court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislati