JUDGMENT :

BISWAJIT BASU, J.

1. The defendant in a suit for ejectment is the petitioner of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is directed against the order no. 33 dated December 12, 2023 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in the said suit being Ejectment Suit No. 146 of 2018.

2. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1997’ in short) ex parte on the ground that the said application was filed four days beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the aforesaid provision of the said Act of 1997 and in consequence thereof, has rejected the petitioner’s other application under Section 7(2) of the said Act of 1997 and upon such rejection, the learned Trial Judge has exercised the power under Section 7(3) of the said Act of 1997 to strike off the defence of the petitioner against the delivery of possession.

3. Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the summons was served upon the petitioner on April 24, 2018; therefore, in terms of Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997, he is required to deposit the admitted arrear rent and current rent by May 24, 2018 but the said date fell within the summer vacation of the Court, as such by virtue of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1963’) the date of the re-opening of the Court was the last date for filing of the said applications which the petitioner did, therefore, the learned Trial Judge has acted with material irregularity in dismissing the said applications on the ground of limitation.

4. Mr. Souradipta Banerjee, learned advocate for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that none of the provisions of the said Act of 1963 is applicable in respect of an application under Section 7 of the said Act of 1997, to buttress his such argument, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar Singh vs. Amit Kumar Chamaria,  (2019) 10 SCC 660 and the decisions of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Calcutta Gujarati Education Society vs. Sri Ajit Narayan Kapoor,  2022 (1) Indian Civil Cases 414 (Cal) and in the case of Arsala Khan vs. Land & Bricks & Entertainment Ltd.  2022 (3) Indian Civil Cases 37 (Cal), therefore Section 4 of the said Act of 1963 cannot be resorted to extend the period of limitation prescribed under the said provision of the said Act of 1997.

5. Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee, in response to the said argument submits that even if it is assumed that the said Act of 1963 is not applicable in respect of an application under Section 7 of the said Act of 1997, but by virtue of Section 12 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, the date of reopening of the Court after the summer vacation was the last date of the period prescribed for filing of such applications; in support of his such submission, he refers to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Balageria Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.  2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 163. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials-on-record.

6. The tenant in a suit for ejectment under Section 6 of the said Act of 1997, in terms of Section 7(1) thereof, is obliged to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Court, arrears of rent calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and upto the end of the month previous to the month in which the payment is made, together with interest at the rate of ten percent per annum, and in terms of sub-section (b) thereof, such payment or deposit shall be made within one month from the date of service of summons upon him, or where he appears in the proceeding without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his such appearance.

7. In the present case, the summons