Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shashikant Vithaldas Mansata& Ors vs Sri Prithvi Raj Duggar on 11 November, 2016
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1 11.11.2016
S.L.-39(KB) C.O. 4197 of 2015 (Assigned) Shashikant Vithaldas Mansata& Ors.
Versus Sri Prithvi Raj Duggar Mr. Suvadeep Sen ... For the petitioners.
In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the Order No.9 dated 10th February, 2015, passed by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.278 of 2014.
2By order dated 26th August, 2016, this Court directed learned counsel for the petitioners to serve notice on the learned counsel for the opposite party appearing before the learned Small Causes Court at Calcutta and furnish proof of such notice on the next date. Today, Sri Suvadeep Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners furnishes a copy of such notice duly acknowledged and served. This Court finds that in spite of filing of affidavit of service and the notice today, none appears to oppose the application.
Accordingly, Sri Sen is heard at length. Sri Sen submits that the order impugned dated 10th February, 2015 (supra) is liable to be set aside since the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (for short the 1997 Act) does not contemplate the filing of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in support of the applications by the tenant/opposite party (O.P.) herein under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act.
Taking this Court to several judicial authorities commencing with the case of Nasiruddin & Ors. V. Sita Ram Agarwal reported in 2003(2) S.C.C. 577, which was considered by an Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in the matter of Smt. Bina Debi vs. 3 Ramesh Kumar Gupta (since deceased) by Smt. Kiran Gupta being C.O. 1847 of 2013, Sri Sen argues that it is not the mandate of Rent Control Legislation such as the 1997 Act that the statutory framework of time granted to a tenant for depositing his dues falling under the provisions such as Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act be extended at the will of the Court.
Sri Sen further argues and, in the opinion of this Court rightly so, that in the event the time is extended under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as done by the learned Chief Judge by his order impugned dated 10th February, 2015, the statutory framework in favour of the benefits to the plaintiff(s) arising out of such non-deposit shall be rendered infructuous. Sri Sen points out that such could not be the intention of the legislators who drafted the rent control legislation.
Having heard the petitioners in detail and considering the law on the point as recorded above, this Court is of the view that the order impugned dated 10th February, 2015 passed by the learned Chief Judge, in Ejectment Suit No.278 of 2014 cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the order impugned dated 10th February, 2015 stands set aside.
4
C.O. 4197 of 2015 stands accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the petitioners on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar,J.)