0

The jurisdiction of a civil judge to extend time to deposit th3 amount adjudicated the the origin order in case of tenancy : high court of Calcutta

The jurisdiction of a civil judge to extend time to deposit the amount adjudicated by the original order in case of tenancy : high court of Calcutta

 

The civil judge exercising jurisdiction under section 7 of the 1997 act does not have the jurisdiction to entertain any application for the extension of the time to deposit the amount adjudicated by the original order passed under sub section 7(2) after the expiry of the period stipulated by the original order, was upheld by the high court of Calcutta through the learned bench of the honourable Justice Ishan Chandra Das in the case M/s. Venus drug centre V Dinabandhu hajra & others in C.O. 801 of 2014.

 

FACTS

The prayer of the petitioner (who is a tenant of the original suit and hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) for extension of time for making deposit of the arrears of rent in five equal instalments and consequently allowed the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, l997, filed on behalf of the opposite parties (the plaintiff landlord of the original suit and hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties), resulting the defence of the petitioner herein to be struck off.

Being aggrieved by such order of rejection as noted above, the petitioner preferred the revisional application questioning legality and propriety of the order dated 15th February, 2014.Whether the court has power to extend time to deposit arrears rent, as prayed for by the petitioner herein, is the solitary question involved in this revisional proceeding.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in course of hearing, submitted that the court has jurisdiction to extend time for deposit or payment of rent.

JUDGEMENT

In the case at hand, the court ruled out by stating that the petitioner filed the application under Section 7(2) of the Act which was allowed by learned court below by Order no. 84 dated 30th July, 2012, the petitioner was found defaulter in payment of rent since December, l994 to September, 2007. The rate of rent was held @ Rs. 75/-per month and the arrear amount was adjudicated and the direction for payment of total arrears of rent to Rs. 15,768/- by five monthly instalments but that order was not complied with though in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure-‘A’ to the revisional application), the petitioner prayed for time to make the deposit in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite parties, instead of raising objection with regard to mis-calculation.

Since the proviso to Section 7(2) of Act of l997 does not provide any scope to extend time by way of condoning the delay for making payment of arrears of rent in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it cannot be said that learned trial court was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner herein for extension of time.

PRIME LEGAL is a full service law firm that has won national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

 

Judgement reviewed by – Rani Banerjee.

Click here to view the judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat