Arijit Banerjee JUDGMENT
Arijit Banerjee, J.
1. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 22 November, 2013 claiming a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises, decree for arrear rent, decree for damages and decree for mesne profits. The writ of summons was received by the defendants on 10 December, 2013. The defendants entered appearance through their learned Advocate on 12 December, 2013. The written statement was served on the plaintiff's learned Advocate on 17 February, 2014. In view of the defendants failing to comply with the provisions of Secs. 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997(in short the said 'Act'), the plaintiff on 2 June, 2014 filed an application being GA No. 1643 of 2014 under Sec. 7(3) of the said Act for striking out the defence of the defendants. The defendants filed an affidavit in opposition to the Sec. 7(3) application wherein it was contended that they were not obliged to file any application under Secs. 7(1) and (2) of the said Act because the suit has been filed before the 'Civil Judge'. During the hearing of the said Sec. 7(3) application, the defendants served on the plaintiff's learned Advocate copies of the applications under Secs. 7(1) and (2) of the said Act being GA Nos. 2908 of 2014 and 2910 of 2014 along with two applications under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act being GA No. 2907 of 2014 and GA No. 2909 of 2014. In the said applications for condonation of delay of about 272 days the defendants contended that the delay in filing the applications under Secs. 7(1) and (2) of the said Act had been caused by the misguidance of the Learned Advocate of the defendants whom the defendants contended, they had subsequently removed as their Advocate.
2. By a common order dated 13 January, 2015 a learned Judge of this Court allowed the applications of the defendants under Secs. 7(1) and (2) of the said Act. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said order. The Hon'ble Appeal Court set aside the said order and remanded back the matter to the First Court for fresh consideration.
3. Accordingly, the present applications are before me.
Contention of the plaintiff:-
4. Appearing for the plaintiff, Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Learned Sr. Counsel submitted that after receiving the writ of summons, it was the duty of the defendants to file application(s) under Secs. 7(1) and (2) of the said Act and deposit the rent before the Civil Judge within one month. The defendants duly filed their written statement within one month of receiving the writ of summons but they failed and neglected to comply with the mandatory provisions of Secs. 7(1) and (2) of the said Act. Hence, the defence of the defendants is liable to be struck out. In this connection, Mr. Chowdhury relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Manju Choudhary vs. Dulal Kumar Chandra, MANU/SC/0779/1987 : AIR 1988 SC 602. Learned Counsel also relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s. Diopharma vs. Sri Rabindra Nath Sadhukhan, MANU/WB/0496/2013 : (2013) 4 ICC 614.
5. Mr. Chowdhury then submitted that the delay in filing the applications under Secs.