Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sushanta Nandy vs Hitendra Kirtania & Ors on 4 December, 2018
1 Sl. December
82. 4, 2018 High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction C.O. 3955 of 2018 Sushanta Nandy Versus Hitendra Kirtania & ors.
Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Mr. Chayan Debnath, ...for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarak Nath Halder, ...for the opposite party no. 1.
The present challenge has been preferred by the defendant/tenant against an order whereby the petitioner's application for acceptance of belated deposits of arrear rents was dismissed and consequentially the plaintiff's application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was allowed, thereby striking out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that although a portion of the amount, as directed under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, was deposited beyond the period of thirty days from such order, the said deposit was made within the further period of two months, upto which extension is permitted by the proviso to Section 7(2) of the said Act.
As such, it is argued that it was within the jurisdiction of the trial court to consider the application for acceptance of belated deposits on merits, which the trial court refused to do.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1, on the other hand, contends that it is the settled position of law that both the deposit as well as the application for condonation 2 of delay in making the deposit and/or for acceptance of such belated deposits have to be made within the outer limit of three months from the date of passing the order under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. In this context, the learned advocate for the opposite party no. 1 cites a decision in the case of Amitava Sen vs. Anup Kumar Dey & ors. reported at 2018(3) ICC 674(Cal), where a single Judge of this court held in consonance with the argument advanced on behalf of the opposite party no. 1.
In view of such legal position, the trial court was within its jurisdiction in refusing to entertain the application for acceptance of belated deposits of arrear rents, which was filed about one year after the passing of the order under Section 7 (2) of the 1997 Act and consequentially to strike out the defence of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the revisional application bearing C.O. 3955 of 2018 is dismissed on contest without, however, any order as to costs.
( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) Dns