Ishan Chandra Das, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the parties.
(2.) IN the instant revisional application, the petitioner being the plaintiff -landlord (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has assailed the Order No. 36 dated 6th September, 2013 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 232 of 2006. The opposite parties/defendants No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) were inducted as tenants in respect of a shop room referred to in the schedule of the plaint of Ejectment Suit No. 232 of 2006 (page 18 of the petition being Annexure 'P -1') by one, Dilip Kumar Dutta and two others, who filed the suit for eviction of the opposite parties herein and recovery of Khas possession on the ground of default and reasonable requirement but subsequently, this petitioner, Tajmul Hossein was added as a party to the eviction suit in terms of Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The opposite parties herein appeared to contest the suit before the learned trial court on 11th October, 2006, filed written statement on 19th April, 2007, issues were framed on 8th February, 2008 and the petitioner herein filed an application for deleting the names of the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 (i.e. the original plaintiffs) which was allowed by learned trial court on 26th November, 2008. On the selfsame date, the opposite parties herein filed an application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 praying for permission to make deposit of the admitted rent at the rate of Rs. 60/ - per month and it was allowed by the learned court below. Thereafter, the plaint was amended, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, inspection was held on due notice to both the parties but on 23 August, 2012, when the petitioner filed an application under Section 7(3), the opposite parties herein came up with the petition under Section 7(2) coupled with a copy of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing such application under Section 7(2) and against such prayer, the petitioner herein filed written objection before the learned court below. The learned trial court disposed of those applications under Section 151 and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by Order No. 33 dated 25th April, 2013 and the application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 was then taken up for hearing on the 6th day of September, 2013. After hearing both the parties, learned court below in the order impugned held that the deposit of rent from August, 2007 to October, 2008 were invalid deposits and no deposits were made since March, 2013 to July, 2013 and therefore, he directed the opposite parties to make fresh deposits of the arrears of rent as calculated in the Order No. 36 dated 6th September, 2013 within 30 days from the date of such order.
(3.) THE averments in paragraph 10 of the revisional application reveals that the opposite parties filed the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for disposal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 7(2) of the Act and while disposing of the said application by Order No. 33 dated 25th April, 2013, he condoned the delay in filing such application under Section 7(2) with further observation that the opposite parties never deserve favourable order but that application was allowed by the learned court below subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,500/ - payable to the plaintiff/petitioner herein.;