Sanjay Sen vs Tapan Kumar Adhya And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3966 Cal

27th July, 2021 (AD 41) (SKB)

C.O. 1317 of 2021 (Via Video Conference)

Sanjay Sen Versus Tapan Kumar Adhya and others

Mr. M. Rahman, Mr. Sankar Paul ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Bhattacharyya ... for the opposite parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

trial court acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the

petitioner's application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 on the premise

that the Supreme Court had held the said section to be

inapplicable to the relevant provisions of the 1997 Act.

Learned counsel contends that the said judgment of

the Supreme Court, reported at 2020(1) I.C.C. 664 (Bijoy

Kumar Singha Vs. Amit Kumart Chemariya and others)

was passed after filing of the application under Section 5

of the Limitation Act and the ratio therein, as such, could

not be applicable to the petitioner's application, which

was filed prior to the said judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends

that even if Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not

applicable, the court ought to have taken into

consideration the provisions of Section 14 of the 1997 Act

while discounting the delay.

Learned counsel appearing for the

plaintiffs/opposite parties, by placing reliance on the

aforesaid reported judgment of the Supreme Court,

submits that the Supreme Court categorically laid down

the law that, in that event no deposit was made and/or

application filed under Section 7(1) or 7(2) of the 1997

Act, there was no scope of Section 5 of the Limitation Act

being attracted.

Upon hearing learned counsel for both sides, it is

evident from the impugned order itself that the trial court

acted well within its jurisdiction in rejecting the

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, since

the judgment of the Apex Court, in so far as the ratio

relied on by the trial court is concerned, lays down on the

latest law on the subject.

Hence, there is no material irregularity and/or

illegality pertaining to the jurisdiction of the trial court in

the present case.

Accordingly, C.O. 1317 of 2021 is dismissed on

contest.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)