SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI,J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against order No. 90 dated 25th January, 2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Serampore in Title Suit No. 994 of 2014 at the instance of the defendant. The defendant filed an application under Section 7(2) and 7(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 on 27th February, 2015 praying for allowing him to grant time for depositing the arrear rent in respect of the tenanted premises. After consideration of the objection filed by the landlord/plaintiff, the learned Court below disposed of the said application by an order dated 10th March, 2017 whereby the arrear rent was calculated to be Rs. 61,500/- at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for a total of 205 months together therewith an interest at the rate of 10% per annum for a sum of Rs. 6150/-, totaling Rs. 67,650/-. By the said order the learned Court below directed the defendant to make payment of the said sum within a month from the date of the order and thereby the application filed by the defendant under Section 7(2) and Section 7(2A) of the Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was disposed of on contest. The defendant being unable to pay the said amount of Rs. 67,500/- within the time stipulated, filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 13th April, 2017. The said application was opposed by the landlord by filing written objection and ultimately, the learned Court below disposed of the said application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant by an order dated 15th May, 2017 thereby allowing the application filed by the defendant. The Court below directed the defendant to make payment of the entire amount of Rs. 67,650/- in six equal monthly instalments of Rs. 11,275/- .While passing the said order granting instalment, the Court however, did not mention since when the first instalment should commence. The order was passed on 15th May, 2017 granting instalment and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner continued to make payment of instalment starting from 6th July, 2017 to 15th January, 2018. In the meantime, however, on 27th October, 2017 that after making payment of two instalments by the defendant, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1007 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for striking out the defence of the defendant and for delivery of possession on the ground of default. A written objection to the said application was filed by the defendant and he contended inter alia, that the defendant deposited the rent as per earlier direction of the Court below of the entire amount of Rs. 67,650/-. By the order impugned, the learned Court below has allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 7 (3) of the said Act holding inter alia, that the defendant has failed to comply with the order passed on 15th May, 2017 and as such the deposit made by the defendant in the months of December and January cannot be considered as valid deposits.
(2.) The question arises whether the observation made by the learned Court below holding that the deposits made by the defendant for the months of December and January are valid deposits within the meaning of the earlier order passed by the Court and also within the meaning of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997?
(3.) Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party/landlord submits that the learned Court below has rightly allowed the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. He submits that this is settled law that Court cannot grant any extension for payment of defaulted amount and even if the Court can grant such extension that should not exceed more than two months as has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subrata Mukherjee v. Bishakha Das reported in 2012(1) Calcutta Law Times 1. In that decision it was under consideration whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable in case of deposit of rent under Section 7 of the Premises Tenancy Act. The Hon'ble Court held the time limit fixed for payment to the landlord after adjudication of the dispute with regard to the rate of rent within the extended time limit as mentioned in the proviso to subsection (2) is inflexible and this cannot be extended by the Court under any circumstances, naturally, provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not be applicable. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Court held that while reading sub-section(1) and sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the 1997 Act it is noticed that there are two limbs. One limb is time limit of one month to deposit admitted amount of arrears of rent in full as mentioned in sub-section (1) and in case of disputed amount, as mentioned in subsection (2) and another limb is time limit for payment of adjudged disputed amount, as mentioned in sub-section (2) and then the extended time limit as mentioned in the proviso thereof. Proviso to Section7 sub-section (2) said that having regard to the circumstances of the case an extension of time may be granted by the Civil Judge only once and the period of such extension shall not exceed two months. Relying on such provision and the ratio decided in the said decision which has been followed in a subsequent decision in the case of Smt. Nilima Das v. Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar reported in 2015 SCC On Line Cal 8831 decided by a Hon'ble single Judge of this Court, Mr. Chakraborty submits that since the learned Court initially directed payment of arrear rent within a period of one month, the Court can extend the period but such extension cannot be more than two months.;