1. The brief backdrop of the case is that the defendant/tenant in a suit for eviction (the present revisionist petitioner) took out an application under Section 27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for emergency restoration of electricity connection.

2. The said application was dismissed by the Civil Court on the ground of limitation by resorting to Section 27(2) of the 1997 Act, which mandates such applications to be made within six months from the connection being cut off by the landlord.

3. The said order of the Civil Court was challenged by the revisionist petitioner by preferring an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, giving rise to CO No.151 of 2024, which was disposed of by an order dated September 11, 2024.

4. In the said order, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the 1997 Act has provided that the Rent Controller would be the competent authority to decide complaints made in that regard by the tenant of a property and accordingly that the Court found it proper to remand back the matter to the Rent Controller for immediate disposal thereof by dint of a reasoned order. The order of the Civil Court was accordingly set aside, excepting that the Court shall proceed for framing of issues in the suit. While disposing of the revisional application, the co-ordinate Bench further observed that it is pertinent to note that the essential services are unavoidable, in case the possession of the petitioner is undisputed in the suit property, be in whatever capacity. Accordingly, the Rent Controller was directed to take into consideration the aspect as above and determine the prayer of the petitioner in accordance with law. The Rent Controller was further directed to pass necessary order in that regard within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of a copy of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner took out an application under Section 27 before the Rent Controller which was initially allowed on contest, against which an appeal was preferred by the landlord/opposite party.

6. The said appeal was disposed of by remitting the matter back to the Rent Controller with a direction that the principle of audi alteram partem shall be adhered to.

7. Thereafter, by an order dated December 30, 2024, the Section 27 Application was moved by a put-up petition and was again allowed, against which a further appeal has been preferred by the landlord/opposite party, bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 2025. By the order impugned in the present revisional application, the said appeal was admitted and the operation of the order passed by the Rent Controller on August 27, 2025, which has been impugned in the appeal, was stayed till the disposal of the appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/revisionist petitioner argues that in view of the specific observation made by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated September 11, 2024, in CO No.151 of 2024, it was mandatory for the Rent Controller to pass a direction of restoration of electricity supply. Learned counsel for the petitioner takes the court through the observations which have already been narrated above.

9. It is further submitted that after such specific direction on the Rent Controller to pass necessary orders for restoration of essential services, there was no further scope of the question of limitation being decided. It is also insinuated by learned counsel for the petitioner that by dint of the said order, the co-ordinate Bench must be deemed to have condoned the delay in preferring the application under Section 27 of the 1997 Act.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a notice of the put-up petition and/or a copy thereof was served on the learned Advocate for the landlord/opposite party before the Rent Controller.

11. It is, thus, submitted that since the petitioner seeks essential services to be restored, the learned Appellate Court erred in law in granting stay till disposal of the appeal, thereby depriving the petitioner from essential amenities.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord/opposite party opposes the prayer of the revisionist petitioner and points out, at the outset, that the application under Section 27 filed by the petitioner being admittedly filed beyond the limitation period of six months as stipulated in Section 27(2), the Rent Controller acted without jurisdiction in allowing the same without considering the question of limitation. Thus, it is argued that the Appellate Court correctly stayed the operation of the said order and entertained the appeal.

13. It is also pointed out that despite specific direction of the Appellate Court at the earlier instance to comply with the audi alteram partem principle, no notice or copy of the put-up petition was given to the landlord/opposite party prior to moving the Section 27 application afresh. Thus, the order of the Rent Controller which has been impugned in the appeal, from which the present revision arises, suffers from such illegality as well.

14. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the observations made by the co-ordinate Bench in CO No.151 of 2024 appears to be the plinth of the petitioner’s submission that the limitation in filing the Section 27 application should be deemed to have been condoned by the said direction.

15. However, by the said order, the co-ordinate Bench merely reiterated the established position of law that essential services are unavoidable in case the possession of the petitioner is undisputed in the suit property, be in whatever capacity.

16. The said observation is also corroborated by Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is the relevant statute regarding electricity being provided to an occupier. However, insofar as the said observation is concerned, it is well-settled that a superior forum, merely by granting liberty to a party to approach a particular forum for a particular remedy, does not have the power to condone the delay, if any, in terms of the relevant statute, in taking recourse to such remedy.

17. It is also not reflected in the order of the co-ordinate Bench dated September 11, 2024, passed in CO No.151 of 2024, that any specific observation was made by the learned Single Judge condoning the delay, if any, in preferring the Section 27 application.

18. In fact, the aspect of the Section 27 application being time-barred by then was not at all adverted to or considered by the co-ordinate Bench while granting the liberty to the petitioner merely to approach the Rent Controller under Section 27 of the 1997 Act, which was held to be the appropriate remedy.

19. Nothing further should be read into the said order than what was specifically observed therein, let alone construing the same to be a deemed condonation of the delay in preferring the Section 27 application.

20. Even in the order passed by the Rent Controller upon remand at the first instance by the Appellate Authority, there is nothing to indicate that any notice or copy of the put-up petition was served before moving the Section 27 application before the Rent Controller. In the order dated October 29, 2024, there is no whisper about any notice being given to the opposite party/landlord or to the opposite party’s lawyer. In the said order, it is merely recorded that the case record was put- up on that date and the petitioner filed hazira through the learned lawyer.

21. It was further recorded that the opposite party “has not taken any initiative in this regard”. It is absolutely vague as to in which regard no initiative was taken by the opposite party, apparently the Rent Controller meaning that such initiative was in respect of restoration of electricity connection.

22. By that as it may, we cannot resort to conjecture, since nothing in the order dated October 29, 2024 reflects any prior notice to have been served on the opposite party/landlord.

23. Thus, prima facie, the said order is vitiated on three important counts.

24. First, it is in derogation of the specific direction by the Appellate Authority at the first instance to adhere to the audi alteram partem principle.

25. Secondly, the moot question of the Section 27 application being time-barred was not even considered while disposing of the same ex parte.

26. Thirdly, even no subsequent notice was directed to be given to the opposite party/landlord before finally disposing of the Section 27 application.

27. Thus, a sufficiently strong prima facie case for admission of the appeal against the said order and grant of ad interim stay was made out by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which justified the Appellate Authority passing the order assailed in the present revision, entertaining such appeal and granting stay.

28. Hence, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order.

29. Accordingly, CO No. 244 of 2025 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming Order No.1 dated September 24, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tufanganj, Cooch Behar in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 2025.

30. Since the issues involved are similar in the other two revisional applications, CO No. 245 of 2025 and CO No. 246 of 2025 are also dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the respective impugned orders, bearing Order No.1 dated September 24, 2025 in connection with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5 of 2025, and Order No.1 dated September 24, 2025 in connection with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2025, both passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tufanganj, Cooch Behar.

31. However, it is expected that the Appellate Authority shall keep in view the exigent circumstances, since the petitioner is allegedly being deprived of essential services, and to dispose of the respective appeals as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month from the date of communication of this order to the Appellate Authority.

32. There will be no order as to costs.

33. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.