JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been assailed against the order dated 10.02.2016 and 20.06.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Alipore in Ejectment Suit No. 168 of 2007. By the impugned order dated 10.02.2016 the court below directed the defendant/tenant to pay Rs. 35,157.54/- within one month from the date of the order while disposing application under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. By the subsequent impugned order dated 20.06.2017 the court below rejected with cost, the defendant’s application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which defendant had sought for reconsideration of the aforesaid order dated 10.02.2016.

2. The case of the petitioner is that plaintiff/opposite party herein filed aforesaid suit for Ejectment against the defendant/petitioner. The petitioner submits that he entered appearance in the said suit and filed written statement and subsequently he also filed application under section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act of 1997. However, learned court below decreed the suit ex-parte on 31st January, 2013. Challenging the said ex-parte decree the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge Alipore, wherein the said appeal was allowed directing the defendant to contest the suit subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-

3. Thereafter the defendants application under section 7(2) came up for hearing before the court below and learned court below after hearing the parties was pleased to direct for payment of Rs. 35,157.54/- towards arrear rent and interest within one month from the date of order. Petitioner subsequently filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling and quashing the order dated 10th February, 2016, contending that the same has been passed without considering the deposits already made by the petitioner herein. Learned court below pleased to reject the said application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Mr. Saha learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the court below has erred in law in not considering that all rent challans have been deposited before the learned court for consideration but overlooking the rent challans and treating them as occupational charges, the learned court below passed the impugned order erroneously by which he has asked the defendant /tenant to deposit the aforesaid amount. Infact learned court below has further erred in declaring the rent challans as invalid from the period of October, 2007 to September, 2008 without assigning any reason whatsoever. Petitioner/defendant is not a defaulter in payment of rent and the order directing the defendant to pay Rs.35,157.54/- is perverse as the same is contrary to the materials on record.

5. He further contended that the learned court below did not consider civil deposits for the month of January, 2015 to December, 2015 and deposit of rent before the Rent Controller from October, 2007 to Septembers, 2008 and also civil deposits challan from July, 2013 to December, 2013 which are lying with the case record. Petitioner further contended that the opposite party/plaintiff has not during the entire proceeding challenged and/or prayed for setting aside all the earlier orders but during ongoing arguments, the opposite parties after 15 years came up with a point about the applicability of law of limitation under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT in respect of petitions filed under section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1997 which is not maintainable in the eye of law. Accordingly the petitioner