M/L- 523

20/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ct. No.-6 Aritra CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 382 of 2025 Champak Dutta Vs.

Manju Ganguly For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Ld. Advocate Mr. Suman Banerjee, Ld. Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Ms. Shebatee Dutta, Ld. Advocate Ms.Poulami Roy, Ld. Advoate Reserved on : 20.08.2025 Judgment on : 20.08.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being No.14 dated July 28, 2022 and the order being No.65 dated December 17, 2024, both passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.

Div.), 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.891 of 2021.

By the order dated July 28, 2022, the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (in short 1997 Act) was disposed of upon holding that the petitioner is a defaulter in payment of rent and directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.407/- by the next date. The petitioner claims to have deposited the said amount on November 9, 2022. The opposite party filed an application under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act and the learned trial judge by an order dated December 17, 2024 allowed the application under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act thereby striking out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession.

Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was held to be a defaulter only for one month. He submits that the petitioner could not have been held to be a defaulter as under Section 6(1)(b) of the 1997 Act, the cause of action for filing a suit on the ground of default is for three months within a period of 12 months. Mr. Banerjee further submits that immediately after the order was passed under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the petitioner approached the Court for deposit of the amount as directed by Order dated July 28, 2022 and the challan was passed on August 30, 2022, but the same was not returned to the petitioner by the concerned department. Immediately thereafter the trial court was closed on account of Puja Vacation and after the court reopened after Puja Vacation, petitioner deposited the said amount. He therefore, submits that the petitioner has complied with the directions passed in the order passed under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act and the defence of the petitioner could not have been struck off.

Ms. Datta, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the petitioner cannot challenge the order dated July 28, 2022 after having accepted the said order and making a deposit of the amount as indicated in the said order. She further submits that the amount was not deposited within the time limit indicated in the said order. She further submits that the amount as claimed to have been deposited by the petitioner was even beyond the time limit as stipulated in the proviso to Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act.

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

Section 6 (1)(b) states that a suit for eviction on the ground of default can be filed where the tenant has made default in payment of rent for three months within a period of 12 months, or for 3 rental periods within a period of 3 years where the rent is not payable monthly.

Section 7 (1) of the 1997 Act states that on a suit being instituted by a landlord for eviction on any one of the grounds under Section 6, the tenant has to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Civil Judge all arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and upto the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Even though a decree for eviction can be passed only if there is a default as contemplated under Section 6(1) (b) of 1997 Act but the fact remains that in order to get the benefit of protection against e