JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Order dated 29th November, 2018 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit No. 353 of 2009 (subsequently renumbered as Ejectment Suit No. 6201 of 2014) has been assailed by filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiff opposite party herein being land lord filed aforesaid suit for Ejectment of premises tenant against the petitioner herein. The petitioners appeared in the said suit on 06.06.2014 and also filed their written statement. The petitioner further submits that as per the advice of the learned Advocate for the petitioner the petitioners were depositing rent regularly before the Rent Controller at Alipore till January 2016. Thereafter the petitioner changed their previous Advocate and only then they were advised by the new advocate to deposit rent of June, 2014 to January 2016 before the court below and as per the said advice the petitioners again deposited the total rent for the said period with statutory interest before the court below and thereafter has been depositing the current rent up to date before the court below. The petitioner had no intentional latches in depositing the rent for the said period before the Rent Controller and for which the petitioner also filed an application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT 1963 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay in filing the applications under section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act of 1997. The aforesaid applications filed under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay along with applications under section 7(1) and 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 were heard by the court below on 29.11.2019, but the court below rejected the tenantdefendant’s application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT and has been pleased to record that since the prayer for condonation of delay has been rejected, as a consequence the petition under section 7(1) and 7(2) which was filed beyond stipulated period, have also become redundant and thereby rejected.

2. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a common litigant totally goes by the advice and guidelines of the learned advocate and in the instant case the non-deposit of the rent before the learned court below by the defendant-petitioner was not due to negligence or malafide intention of the petitioner but due to the inadvertence-wrong advice or bonafide mistake on the part of the learned advocate for which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The learned court below in fact failed to appreciate that the petitioner had deposited rent from May 2007 to July 2016 before the Rent Controller Kolkata and thereafter before the Additional Rent Controller at Alipore. Learned court below further failed to appreciate that the plaintiff had with an ulterior motive to evict the defendant-petitioner, had refused to accept the rent personally and also the rent which was sent through money order. Petitioner thereafter is depositing rent before the court continuously. Accordingly the court below ought to have considered that the bonafide mistake of counsel is “sufficient cause” under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT of 1963 and as such the delay in filing application under section 7(1) and 7(2) in the instant case should have been condoned. In support of his contention the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in Subrata Mukherjee Vs. Bishal Das reported in 2002 (3) CHN (cal) 423 and another unreported