In the High Court At Calcutta

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

CO/171/2025

PINTOO AGARWAL

VS

AMAR NAULAKHA

For the Petitioner :Mr. Hasang Bhutia, Advocate

For the Opposite Party :Mr. Raja Saha, Advocate

Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley, Advocate

Ms. Bedashruti Bose, Advocate Mr. Subham Chanda, Advocate

Heard & Judgment on: November 19, 2025

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Revisional application is directed against Order No. 27 dated July

31, 2025 passed in OC Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2023 pending in the

Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darjeeling.

2. Revisonal application is at the behest of the plaintiff in a suit for

eviction.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the

plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on October 16, 2023. The summons on the Opposite Party was served on November 1, 2023. The Opposite Party appeared on November 2, 2023. According to

him, therefore, in terms of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, since, the suit property was governed by the provisions of the Act of 1997, was obliged to deposit rent within one month from the service of summons on the tenant. He points out that, the summons were served upon the Opposite Party on November 1, 2023. The deposit of rent even going by the order impugned was made on June 13, 2025. Consequently, the defence of the Opposite Party is liable to be struck out under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1997.

4. In support of the contention that, the defence of the Opposite Party is liable to be struck out, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon 2019 (10) SCC 660 [Bijay Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya & Ors.], and 2024 (2) CHN (CAL) 641 [Binika Thapa (nee Rai) & Ors. vs. Damber Kumari Mukhia & Ors.]

5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the learned Judge by the impugned order, acted with material irregularity in dismissing the application under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1997 in the facts of the present case.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the Opposite Party points out that, immediately on the defendant entering into appearance on November 2, 2023, a petition under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act of 1997 was filed. He submits that, there was a dispute with regard to quantum of rent payable. Such dispute is established by the fact that, the petitioner as the plaintiff applied under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of amendment of the plaint with regard to the quantum of rent due. Therefore, as on the date when the application for fixation of rent under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act of 1997 was filed, there was a dispute which required adjudication.

7. Materials on record establish that, suit for eviction was filed by the petitioner on October 16, 2023. Summons of such suit was served on the Opposite Party on November 1, 2023. Opposite Party entered appearance in such suit on November 2, 2023. Opposite Party filed an application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act of

1997 on December 1, 2023.

8. The application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act of 1997 was within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the Opposite Party, in terms of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act of 1997. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7(3) of the Act of

1997.

9. There subsisted a dispute with regard to the quantum of rent payable in view of the fact that the original plaint, prior to amendment contained a figure different to that which the Opposite Party as the defendant acknowledged as payable, in its application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act of 1997. Such dispute was sought to be resolved by way of the petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 amending the plaint to bring the quantum of rent due to be in consonance with the quantum acknowledged by the Opposite Party.

10. By the impugned order, learned Trial Judge, considered two