Bharati Sanyal & Anr vs Ratan Guha

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The present challenge is at the behest of the defendants in a suit for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, although the petitioners filed an application for acceptance of belated deposits of arrears, as directed under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, within the outer limit of three months, the trial court took into consideration the date of passing of the order and not the date of filing of the application in rejecting the same on the ground that it was time-barred.

It is further submitted that sufficient grounds were made out in the application itself for acceptance of the belated deposits.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party points out that, although an application was made within three months, no proper explanation was given in the said application for condonation of delay, which was adjudicated upon by the trial court.

Moreover, it is argued that the defendants/petitioners did not deposit the arrear amounts along with the application, which is mandatory under the proviso to Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act.

Upon considering the submissions of both sides, it is seen that, although the petitioners filed their application for acceptance of belated deposits of arrears in terms of the order under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act within a period of three months, which is the outer limit as per the proviso to Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the petitioners did not deposit the amount of arrears by challans, which they ought to have done as well, even apart from filing such application, within the outer limit of three months, to bring the petitioners within the purview of the proviso to Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act.

In the absence of such deposit being made, but only a bald application having been filed by the petitioners for acceptance of such deposits, the trial court acted within jurisdiction in applying the rigours of the proviso to Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act to the instant case.

Moreover, the trial court factually decided, upon a full consideration of the grounds shown for the delay, that such grounds were not acceptable to the trial court, which factual discretion ought not to be interfered with at the drop of a hat by this court.

Accordingly, C.O. No. 3216 of 2019 is dismissed on contest without, however, any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.