LOKNATH DHAL Vs. GITA RANI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to set aside/quash the order being order No. 14 dated 19.06.2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Chandannagar in Title Suit No. 17 of 2013 rejecting the application dated 2nd May, 2013 filed by the defendant/petitioner herein praying for condonation of delay in depositing the admitted arrear rent.

(2.) The plaintiff/Opposite Party herein instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction, recovery of khas possession, mense profit and other consequential reliefs against the defendant/petitioner on various grounds including the ground of default. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant is a tenant in respect of a shop room at a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- payable according to English Calender month. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent since the month of July, 2010. The defendant/petitioner on receipt of the summons entered into appearance on 14.03.2013 and filed two applications - one under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997; (herein after referred to as the said Act) and the other under Section 7(2) of the said Act and started depositing the current rent at his own risk. In both these applications and also in the written statement the defendant admitted that the rent is due from the month of July, 2010. He however did not deposit such admitted arrear rent. Instead he filed the petition under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on 02.05.2013, praying for condonation of the delay in depositing the said admitted arrear rent with interest, which has been rejected. Hence this revision.

(3.) Mr. Kajal Roy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/defendant is a poor businessman having a very meagre income and that's why he could not deposit entire arrear rent at a time within the statutory period and for that reason he prayed for leave to deposit such amount after condonation of delay. Mr. Roy contended that the Court has enough power to enlarge time to make the deposit specially when sufficient cause has been shown. He contended yet further that although the Clause (a) of Section 7 (1) of the said Act lays down that the tenant shall pay to the landlord or deposit the same with the court all arrears of rent but such provision is directory and not mandatory. But the Learned Trial Judge quite illegally rejected such prayer without showing any reason. Therefore, according to him the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. He relied on an unreported judgment of a Learned Single Bench of this Court passed on 14.12.2010 in the case of M/S.Indo Americans Electricals v. Gopa Sinha & Ors. in support of his contention.