D/L- 210

01/08/2025 Ct. No.-6 Aritra C.O. 317 of 2025 Shiw Ram Jhunjhunwala Vs.

Asha Bansal & Ors.

Mr. Susenjit Banik Ms. Shreya Agarwal .…for the petitioner Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.

Mrs. Sabita Mukherjee Mr. Meghnad Dutta Mr. Arijit Das Mullick Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee Ms. Kazi Sabbu ….for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the orders dated May 14, 2024 and August 1, 2024 both passed by the learned Civil Judge, 12^th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.18 of 2022.

By the order dated May 14, 2024 the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was allowed.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recall of the order dated May 14, 2024 which was rejected by the order dated August 1, 2024.

The opposite party herein filed a suit for eviction on the grounds enumerated under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

The petitioner herein filed applications under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act.

The learned trial judge by an order dated March 24, 2023 allowed the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act thereby permitting the petitioner to deposit the current rent month by month as prayed for in court by challan.

Mr. Banik, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner prayed for an order allowing him to deposit the arrear rent from the month of August, 2021 till the date of filing of such application by filing the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act and the learned trial judge permitted the petitioner to deposit only the current rent month by month. He submits that the petitioner complied with the directions contained in the order dated March 24, 2023. Mr. Banik submits that without an adjudication of the dispute raised in Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the learned trial judge ought not to have struck out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession by invoking the provisions of Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the opposite parties draws the attention of the Court to the statements made in the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act as well as the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act and submits that the petitioner has admitted that rent on and from the month of August, 2021 is due and payable. He submits that the petitioner did not deposit the admitted arrears of rent along with the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. He, therefore, submits that on the account of failure to deposit the admitted arrears of rent, the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act was not maintainable in the eye of law.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed.

In the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act, the petitioner has specifically stated that the plaintiff No.2 used to accept the rent in respect of the suit property and lastly the plaintiff No.2 accepted the rent on August 14, 2021 for a period of three months from May, 2021 to July, 2021. It has been further stated in the said application that thereafter the plaintiffs did not accept any rent. The petitioner stated that after a lapse of a year the defendant requested the plaintiff No.2 several times to accept the arrears of rent but the plaintiff No.2 did not give a definite answer and delayed the matter.

After going through the statements made in the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, this Court finds that it has been admitted that the plaintiff No.2 accepted the rent for the last time up to the month of July, 2021.

On a conjoint reading of the statements made in the application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act, it is evident that the petitioner admitted that rent from the month of August, 2021 is due and payable fro