SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) The present revisional application is by the tenant being dissatisfied by order No. 11 dated 14th January, 2011 passed in Title Suit No. 17 of 2010.
(2.) An application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was filed by the tenant-applicant after a delay of 40 days from the date of appearance of the defendants which is beyond the stipulated period of 30 days. In the application, the tenant prayed for condonation of delay as also deposit of arrear rent which according to the defendants, is estimated at Rs. 8,685/- (193 months from January, 1994 till the date of making of the application at the monthly rate of Rs. 45/-). The learned Judge considered the matter and found that no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed and the defendants did not assign any reason for delay in filing the said petition. There was no evidence even at the argument stage which could support the case of the petitioners for depositing the said arrears after the expiry of the stipulated period. The learned Court below relies on the decisions reported in 88 CWN 898 and 1986 CHN 413 and observed that the delay can only be condoned upon filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the tenant on the Court being satisfied about the sufficient cause to condone such delay. Such well settled principles of law cannot be disputed since it is incumbent upon the applicant to satisfy the Court with some proper explanation for approaching the Court beyond the period of limitation. Unless the sufficient cause is shown, the Court cannot assume jurisdiction over the lis and it is for that purpose the Court at the first instance in such a situation is required to satisfy about the sufficient cause. The word 'sufficient cause' has received both liberal and restricted interpretation depending upon the fact situation and no straight jacket formula could apply in such a situation. The party approaching the Court beyond the period of limitation is required to explain in some details about the reasons for not approaching the Court within the time. It is expected that the Court would take a pragmatic view of the matter without being pedantic. However, these are the matters which fall within the domain of the Court deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Although in a given situation even an oral prayer for condonation of delay could subserve the purpose of provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act but in situation like this such explanation must come on record and accordingly it would be open for the defendants-tenants (the petitioner herein) to make an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act explaining the delay in approaching the Court beyond time. However, this order should not be construed to mean that this Court is allowing the Section 5 application in favour of the petitioner. It is only an observation and it is for the petitioner to decide what course he should adopt in the matter. I find no infirmity in the order under challenge.
(3.) However, my attention was drawn to the observation made by the learned single Judge in disposing of the application which is reproduced hereinbelow: " "?...The ratio of the decision reported in 88 CWN 898, is that delay in filing an application under this provision can be condoned at any time and at any stage provided the petitioner can satisfy the conscience of the Court that there was sufficient cause for delay. In several other decisions it has been held that delay in filing the application under section 17(2) of the 1956 Act may be condoned by the Court on a proper application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the tenant and the Court on being satisfied about the sufficient cause may condone such delay. In 1986 CHN 413 it has also been observed that such delay cannot be condoned under Section 151 C.P. Code. In this case defendants did not cite any cause, let alone a sufficient one, for the delay. They also failed to initiate any separate petition for condonation of the same. Thus the question of Court's satisfaction does not arise.";