BEHARILAL SHAW Vs. SURENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revisional Application is directed against an order being No. 71 dated 18.2.86 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 228 of 1983. The landlord of the suit premises, wherein the opposite party is a tenant, is the petitioner in the said Revisional Application. The tenant/opposite party filed a belated application under Sections 17(1), 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act with an application for condonation of delay, which had been allowed by the learned Munsif by the impugned order. The extent of delay, as found by the Court below, is sixty-seven days.

(2.) IN support of the Revisional Application, Mr. Rej has strongly contended that the delay does not deserve condonation as the reasons advanced on behalf of the tenant/opposite party before the Court below clearly indicate that the delay occurred due to gross and inexcusable legal advice and not due to any bonafide mistake either on the part of the tenant/opposite party or his lawyer. Apart from the contradictions in the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, the evidence tendered on behalf of the tenant/opposite party before the Court below, Mr. Rej has submitted, unequivocally shows that the lawyer or lawyers who were in charge of the defence did not exercise reasonable care and skill resulting in default of the tenant/opposite party in making the requisite application and such mistake of a lawyer cannot entitle the defendant/opposite party to a condonation of such default. In fine, Mr. Rej has challenged the propriety and correctness of the findings made by the Court below on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed on the ground that in arriving at such findings the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by making out a case not made by the defendant/opposite party himself, overlooking the incongruities between evidence and pleading.

(3.) MR . Pal, the learned Advocate for the tenant/opposite party, has contended that the Court below was justified in condoning the delay in conformity with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another, reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 1400. According to him, the basic principle which governs such cases is that no litigant should be penalised for defaults or inaction or even deliberate omission of a duly qualified lawyer. Notwithstanding unimportant contradictions, which had crept in the pleading on behalf of the tenant/opposite party and the evidence adduced on his behalf, according to him, the position that the client took all steps what he was supposed to take is absolutely clear and uncontrovertible. The Court below was, therefore, right in condoning the delay and this Court in exercise of its Revisional Jurisdiction should not interfere.