Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sekhar Samaddar vs Bidesh Ranjan Bhuiya on 2 December, 2013
Author: Tarun Kumar Gupta
Bench: Tarun Kumar Gupta
1
17.
02.12.2013.
F.B. C.O. 268 of 2010 Sekhar Samaddar
-Vs.-
Bidesh Ranjan Bhuiya Mr. Tarak Nath Halder ..... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Amar Nath Das ..... For the Opposite Party.
__________ The petitioner/defendant-tenant has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27th November, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Sealdah in Ejectment Case No. 105 of 2004.
By the order impugned learned trial Court rejected the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 filed by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he did not deposit the admitted arrear rents along with statutory interest in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act and that he did not also file any petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in the matter of filing the applications.
Learned advocate, Mr. Tarak Nath Halder appearing for the petitioner-tenant submits that in the meantime the 2 petitioner/defendant-tenant has already filed in Court an application under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1997, another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in the matter of filing of application under Section 7(1) of the Act and also an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling and/or vacating the impugned order dated 27th November, 2009. Mr. Halder submits that in view of filing of those applications particularly the application for recalling and/or vacating the impugned order dated 27th November, 2009, a direction may be given to the learned trial Court for disposing of the same according to law by way of disposing of this revisional application.
Mr. Amar Nath Das, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party-landlord submits that he has no objection if this revisional application is disposed of with said direction as prayed by the learned advocate for the petitioner-tenant.
In view of the submissions of the learned advocates of the parties and in view of the fact that the petitioner-tenant has already filed one application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court below for recalling and/or vacating the impugned order dated 27th November, 2009 together with two other applications mentioned above, I am of the opinion that this revisional application should be disposed of directing the learned Court concerned to dispose of those applications according to law at an early date.
Accordingly, this revisional application is disposed of directing the learned trial Court to dispose of the applications under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1979, under Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
3As this is an Ejectment Suit of 2004, learned trial Court is requested to dispose of those pending applications within six weeks from the date of communication of this order and thereafter to proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible so that the entire suit may be disposed of within six months therefrom.
The revisional application stands disposed of accordingly. However, I pass no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates appearing for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.)