Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rameshwar Jadav vs Ms. Sultana Abdullah And Others on 21 December, 2017
1 S/L. 10.
December 21, 2017.
MNS.
C. O. No. 3166 of 2017 Rameshwar Jadav Vs. Ms. Sultana Abdullah and others Mr. Sourav Banerjee, Mr. Arnab Dutt ...for the petitioner.
This revisional application is at the instance of a defendant in an eviction suit filed under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
By virtue of the impugned order dated July 24, 2017, the trial Court has rejected an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of an application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. The premise of such rejection was that the trial Court had no power to condone such delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner cites a division Bench judgment of this Court reported at (2012) 1 CAL LT 1 (Subrata Mukherjee Versus Bisakha Das) where it was held that the time limit of deposit of the admitted arrears of rent as mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 of the 1997 Act is directory and that the Court has power to grant extension of such time. It was further held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, namely Section 5 thereof would be applicable in such a scenario by virtue of Section 40 of the 1997 Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further cites another judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported at (2015) 4 WBLR 348 (Sree Krishna Welding Works Vs. Amit Kumar Chamaria and others). In such judgment, same proposition was reiterated.
Despite service none appears on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1. As such, the matter is taken up for hearing ex parte.
2
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the relevant provisions of law, it is evident from a composite reading of Section 7 and Section 40 of the 1997 Act that the provisions of Limitation Act apply to proceedings under the said Act. These, coupled with the stipulation in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, make it obvious that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to a delayed deposit under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. In this context, the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, may be referred to:
"........
(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
........."
Accordingly, C. O. No. 3166 of 2017 is disposed of by setting aside the order impugned and directing the Court below to rehear the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner afresh and to dispose of the same within a reasonable period after hearing both sides as soon as the business of the Court permits.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) 3