IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswajit Basu C.O. 348 of 2025 Sakeel Ahmed @ Shakil Ahemed Versus Md. Ibrahim Ansari For the Petitioner : Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Souvik Das Mr. Rudranil Das For the opposite party : Mr. Sanjib Seth Ms. Soumi Chakraborty Heard on : 24.12.2025 Judgment on : 24.12.2025 Biswajit Basu, J:

1. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction under Section 6 of The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (herein after referred to as ‘the said Act of 1997’ in short) and is directed against the order dated December 20, 2024 passed by the 3^rd Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Howrah in the said suit being Title Suit No.1499 of 2017.

2. The learned Trial Judge, by the order impugned has dismissed an application under Section 7(2) of the said Act of 1997, holding that the tenant has failed to deposit the admitted arrear rent within the period prescribed under Section 7(1)

thereof and consequently has struck off the defence of the defendant against delivery of possession under Section 7(3) of the said Act of 1997.

3. The connected suit was once decreed ex parte on October 04, 2018. The said decree however was set aside on January 25, 2024 on an application filed by the tenant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby the suit was restored to its original file and number. The learned Trial Judge, after setting aside the said ex parte decree, had fixed April 09, 2024 as the date for appearance of the parties.

4. The tenant on May 07, 2024 had filed applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act of 1997. The learned Trial Judge has dismissed the said applications, holding that the defendant should have deposited arrear rent as admitted by him sharp on the date of appearance after restoration of the suit, as he was aware of the proceeding even during the period of pendency of the restoration application but he has failed to deposit the arrear rent even after filing the application under Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 on May 07, 2024, besides filing of the said application was beyond the statutory period, which is required to be reckoned from the date of restoration of the suit.

5. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, learned advocate for the tenant submits that the learned Trial Judge has erroneously held that the application under Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation inasmuch as the tenant, within one month from the date fixed for his appearance in the suit, had filed the said applications.

6. Mr. Sanjib Seth, learned advocate for the landlord submits that the said ex parte decree was set aside at the instance of the tenant; therefore, as soon as the suit was restored, it would be presumed that the tenant has entered appearance in the said suit and the time of filing of the application under Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 should be reckoned from the said date.

Heard learned advocates for the parties; perused the materials-on-record.

7. The main issue that falls for consideration, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is what would be the relevant date from which the period of limitation to file an application under Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 would be calculated.

8. The provision of Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 does not contemplate filing of an application. The said provision is an enabling provision, the tenant in order to get the protection against the eviction, is to deposit the admitted arrear rent along with 10% interest thereon within one month of the service of summons on him or, where he appears in the suit without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his appearance. The provision contemplates two modes to liquidate the arrear rent i.e., deposit with the Civil Judge or payment to the landlord.

9. The Hon’bl