JUDGMENT :

1. In this revisional application Order No. 95 dated 21.04.2022 as passed in Ejectment Suit No. 200 of 2008 by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta has been assailed. By the impugned order learned Trial Court rejected the defendant/tenant’s application to deposit of arrears of rent for the period of September 2006 to May 2008 after disposal of the application under Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 hereinafter refer to as the ‘said Act’.

2. In support of the instant revisional application, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the defendant/petitioner draws attention of this Court to the impugned order as well as to the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 17.05.2016 while disposing the petition under Section 7 (2) of the said Act. It is contended that due to bona fide mistake the arrear of rent could not be deposited prior to or along with the filing petition under Section 7 (2) of the said Act. It is, thus, argued that for the aforesaid reason the present petitioner before the learned Trial Court has filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 26.09.2016 for granting permission to deposit the said arrear of rent, that is, for the period of September 2006 to May 2008 at his own risk. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to visualize that in the event such an application is allowed by the said Court that would not touch the legality and veracity of the Order No. 56 dated 17.05.2016 as passed by the Trial Court. It is, thus, submitted that the instant revisional application be allowed by the setting aside the impugned order permitting the present petitioner to deposit the arrear of rent as discussed above.

3. In course of his submission, Mr. Pal, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs/opposite parties, however, opposes such contention. It is submitted by him that the Order No. 56 dated 17.05.2016 as passed by the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid suit has been assailed before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the same was up held. It is contended further that for the non-compliance of provision of Section 7 (1) of the said Act, the present plaintiffs/opposite parties has already filed an application under Section 7 (3) of the said Act before the learned Trial Court and the same is still pending. It is further argued that in the event the present defendant/petitioner is permitted to deposit the arrear of rent as prayed for that would demolish the plaint case of the present opposite party/plaintiff as well as the same will also affect the petition under Section 7 (3) of the said Act as pending before the Trial Court. In support of his contention, Mr. Pal has placed his reliance upon the two reported decisions namely “Bijay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya & Ors.” reported in 2020 (1) Indian Civil Cases 664 (S.C.) Supreme Court of India and “Anwar Hussain Vs. Raja Mohammed Amin & Ors.” as reported in 2018 (1) ICC 361 (Cal.).

4. This Court has meticulously gone through the impugned order as passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the entire materials as placed before this Court. This Court has also given due consideration over the submission over the learned Advocate for the contending parties, this Court has also gone through the provision of Section 7 of the said Act.

5. For effective adjudication of the instant revisional application this Court considers that the relevant portion of the reported decision of Bijay Kumar Singh (Supra) may be looked into and the same is reproduced herein verbatim:

“21. Sub-section (3) provides for consequences of non-payment of rent i.e. striking off the defence against the delivery of the possession and to proceed with the hearing of the suit. Such provision is materially different from sub sections (2A) and (2B) which was being examined by this Court in B.P. Khemka. Sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of Sectio