ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the present revisional application is the order dated July 04, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Misc. Case No. 4580 of 2014 rejecting the application of the petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India for condonation of delay of 68 days, in preferring an application for recalling of the order dated September 15, 2014, whereby the appeal, being Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2009 filed by the opposite party was decided in the absence of the petitioner.
(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision in this revisional application lay in a narrow compass. The opposite party was a tenant in respect of a flat comprising 2000 square feet of the premises no. 3, Clive Road, Kolkata (hereinafter called "the suit property") under the petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation of India. By a notice dated July 08, 2003 the petitioner terminated the tenancy of the opposite party in respect of the suit property and requested the latter to hand over peaceful possession of the suit property to the petitioner on the expiry of the last date of August, 2003. However, the opposite party refused to vacate the suit property and the petitioner referred the case to the Estate Officer for initiation of an eviction proceeding against the opposite party from the suit property under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short "the Act of 1971"). The Estate Officer issued a show cause notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 to the opposite party which was also replied by the latter. Thereafter, the Estate Officer proceeded with the eviction proceeding, numbered as E.O./367/0807 and the opposite party duly contested the said eviction proceeding. On September 01, 2009 the Estate Officer passed an order directing eviction the opposite party from the suit property.
(3.) The opposite party challenged the said order of eviction dated September 01, 2009 passed by the Estate Officer by preferring an appeal, being Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2009 before the learned Chief Judge City Civil Court at Calcutta. The petitioner, as the respondent in the said appeal engaged an advocate to contest the appeal on its behalf. However, when the appeal was taken up for hearing by the learned appellate Court below, the learned advocate representing the petitioner did not appear and the appeal was heard ex-parte. By a judgment and order dated September 14, 2014, the learned appellate Court below allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party and set aside the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer. In the last week of December, 2014 the petitioner filed an application, being Misc. Case No. 4580 of 2014 before the learned appellate Court below praying for, recalling of the said judgment and order dated September 14, 2014. Although, there was delay of 68 days in preferring the said application by the petitioner, but the petitioner filed the application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 on September 15, 2015. As recorded above, by the impugned order the learned Court below rejected the said application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963. The learned appellate Court below held that the application filed by the petitioner, under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 did not disclose any cogent or any sufficient ground for condonation of delay of as many as 68 days.;