Application Dismissed: Failure to Show Cause for Condonation

The court dismissed the application with costs, ruling that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply and that the applicant did not qualify for relief under Section 17(1)(c) of the Act. The court stayed the order's operation until 25th September 1970.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in making the application.
2. Extension of time to deposit rent.
3. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
4. Validity of deposits made by the applicant.
5. Mistake as a ground for relief under Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Making the Application:
The applicant sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, arguing that the delay was due to a bona fide mistake by their Rent Court lawyer, who erroneously believed that deposits made with the Rent Controller were valid. The court found that the mistake was not sufficient cause for condonation of delay, emphasizing that not every mistake or even a bona fide mistake of a lawyer would attract the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court noted that the alleged mistake was due to ignorance of the lawyer, which could have been avoided with reasonable diligence.

2. Extension of Time to Deposit Rent:
The applicant requested an extension of time to deposit rent under Section 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The court observed that the time to make the payment had expired on 17th August 1969, as admitted by the applicant. The court highlighted that Section 17(2B) of the Act sets a special period of limitation for making such applications and that the application was made long after the expiry of this period.

3. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:
The court discussed whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to applications under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It referenced Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which makes Sections 4 to 24 applicable to periods of limitation prescribed by any special or local law unless expressly excluded. The court noted that Section 39 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act makes all provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to suits, appeals, and proceedings under it, subject to the provisions of the Act relating to limitation. However, the court ultimately followed the judgment of Ramendra Mohan Datta J., which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to applications made under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

4. Validity of Deposits Made by the Applicant:
The court considered the validity of the deposits made by the applicant with the Rent Controller. It noted that the plaintiff had raised the issue of invalidity of the deposits in an affidavit filed in August 1969, which the defendant had replied to but failed to investigate further. The court found that the lawyer's advice regarding the deposits was given negligently and without due care, further weakening the applicant's position.

5. Mistake as a Ground for Relief under Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The applicant argued that the delay was due to a mistake within the meaning of Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides relief from the consequences of a mistake. The court rejected this argument, stating that the mistake was related to a provision of law rather than a fact. It emphasized that the mistaken advice of a lawyer regarding the law cannot be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The court cited previous decisions, including Bhakti Bhusan Mondal v. Khagendra K. Bandopadhya, which outlined the criteria for when a litigant could benefit from Section 5 of the Limitation Act due to a lawyer's mistake.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application with costs, concluding that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay and that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to the present application. The court also found that the applicant was not prevented from making the application by any mistake within the meaning of Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The operation of the order was stayed until 25th September 1970.

---