SM. ANNAPURNA MUKHERJEE Vs. SATISH CHANDRA SIKDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court under Sec. 17(2) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It appears that the summons was served on the usual process and by registered post.

(2.) The postal acknowledgement shows that the defendant got the summons on 6th of Oct., 1975 and he entered appearance on 2nd of Jan., 1976. While appearing in the suit he did not say that the copy of the plaint was not given by the plaintiff but was admittedly given on the 8th of March, 1976. An application under Sec. 17(2) of the Act wag filed eighteen days after 2nd of Jan., 1976 when he entered appearance and there was a delay for eighteen days after one month. Curiously enough the learned Judge found that even on application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is not necessary as the copy of the plaint was served on the 8th of March, 1976. The period of Limitation was countered under Sec. 17(1) from the said date and not earlier. This finding, in my opinion, is contrary to the statutory provision itself. The statute under Sec. 17(1) makes it clear that on the suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any ground referred to in Section, 13 the tenant shall subject to the provision of Sub-section (2) within one month from the date of service of writ of summons on him or where he appears in the suit or proceeding without the writ of summons being served on him within one month from the date of appearance , deposit in court etc. Therefore, there is no option on the part of the court to extend the statutory provision by saying that the copy of the plaint was not served with the writ of summons, or on the date of appearance of the defendant, Sec. 17(1) will have no application. In my opinion, the learned Judge is wholly wrong in taking that view. This is a statutory provision and cannot in any circumstances be extended unless there is a statutory power to do so. Under Sec. 17(1) there is no power to the Court, except an application is made under any other provisions of the Act or under Sec. 3 of the Limitation Act if the Court feels that .sufficient cause has been made out for such purpose. After saying that no application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is necessary the Court has no power to extend the time under the statutory provision.

(3.) The Rule is therefore made absolute. The order of the learned Judge is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.