DIOPHARMA Vs. RABINDRA NATH SADHUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revisional applications are taken up for hearing analogously as a common question of law is involved in both the matters.

(2.) The petitioner company had several separate tenancies under the O. P. landlords. O. P. landlords filed Title Suit No.554 of 2006 as well as Title Suit No..555 of 2006 against the petitioner tenant in respect of two separate tenancies on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant company received the summons in both the cases on 13th of January, 2007 and appeared on 28th of March, 2007 by filing written statement and vokalatnama. The petitioner defendant filed application under Section 7 (1) and 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter to be referred as Act of 1997) on 18th of September, 2007 in both the suits. Learned trial court passed separate but identical order on 26th of June, 2012 in both the suits rejecting said application filed under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 as those were filed much beyond the prescribed time of limitation. The petitioner defendant preferred two revisional applications being C. O. No.2801 of 2011 and C. O. No.2731 of 2011 against said orders of rejection of the applications under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 both dated 26th of June, 2012. One of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court disposed of said two revisional applications by an order dated 26th of June, 2012. Learned revisional court affirmed said order of rejection of the application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 by the orders impugned dated 26.06.2012 on the ground of delay but permitted the petitioner to file an application explaining said delay and directing learned trial court to dispose of said application on merit, if filed. Admittedly the petitioner defendant filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in both the ejectment suits on 30th of January, 2013 explaining their delay in filing said applications under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997. However, learned trial court rejected said applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in both the cases by separate orders passed on 27th of February, 2013.

(3.) Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner tenant, submits that the petitioner defendant on receipt of summons on 13th of January, 2007 engaged an advocate Mr. Champak Kanjilal for looking after the ejectment suits and that in view of not giving any advice by said counsel the petitioner could not file the application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 in time. He further submits that as there was no advice for filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of said delay at the time of filing the application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997, the petitioner did not file said application praying for condonation of delay initially. He submits that after obtaining leave of this Court vide Order dated 26th of June, 2012 the petitioner tenant filed said applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 30th of January, 2013 explaining the grounds of delay in filing applications under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997.