IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.O.764 of 2022 Pradip Shaw VS.

Srimati Namita Garai & Ors.

For the petitioner :Mr. Sanjib Kr. Mukhopadhyay, Adv.

For the Opposite Party :Mr. Uttiya Ray, Adv.

no.1 to 3 Mr. Anirban Ghosh Last Heard On :18.03.2025 Judgement On : 21.03.2025 Bibhas Ranjan De, J. :

1. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Judge, Bench No. II, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in connection with Ejectment Case No. 291 of 2009 wherein Ld. Judge rejected the application preferred by the defendant/ petitioner herein thereby declining to grant any permission to deposit the due monthly rent from August 2021 to December 2021.

2. The contentious issue involved in this application finds its genesis from a suit for ejectment and recovery of khas possession and mesne profit directed against the predecessor in-interest of the proforma opposite party nos. 4 to 8 herein in the Court of Ld. Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta which was registered as Ejectment Suit No. 291 of 2009. During the pendency of such suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) on 18.12.2021 with a prayer for allowing him to deposit the rent on and from August 2021 to till December 2021 after condoning the delay. But, the Ld. Trial Judge vide the impugned order dismissed such prayer of the petitioner thereby rejecting the application under Section 151 of the CPC. Hence the instant revision.

At the Bar:-

3. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Sanjib Kr. Mukhopadhyay, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly canvassed his argument on the specific observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court recorded in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 wherein specific relaxation was given for the period from 15.03.2020- 28.02.2022 for the purpose of computation of limitation while taking into consideration the impact of surge of COVID pandemic throughout the country. Mr. Mukhopadhay with the assistance of the aforesaid observation has tried to make this court understand that Ld. Trial Judge acted contrary to the spirit of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel, Mr. Uttiya Ray, appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 to 3 has submitted that Ld. Trial Judge rightly exercised his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order as it is settled proposition of law that tenant cannot take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act if he fails to deposit admitted arrears of rent timely.

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Ray has taken assistance of the following cases:-

 Bijay Kumar Singh and others vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya and another reported in (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 660  Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020  Sri Om Prakash Agarwal & Anr. vs. Sri Bijay Singh Dugar & Ors. in C.O. 3360 of 2019 Analysis:-

6. Before embarking on the issue involved in this revision application it would be prudent to reproduce the provision of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,1997:-

“7. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction-

(1) (a) On a proceeding being instituted by the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in section 6, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section, pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller all arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and upto the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum.

(b) Such payment or deposit shall be made within one month of the service of summons on the tenant or, where he appears in the proceeding without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his appearance. (c) The tenant shall thereafter continue to pay to the landlord or depo