IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 4338 of 2024 Dulal Saha Vs.

Prativa Kantha & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyam Mukherjee Mr. Jakir Sardar Ms. Sayani Ahmed Mr. Purnendu Shekhar Ghosh For the Opposite parties : Mr. Dilip Kumar Maity Mr. Uttam Kumar Kamila Heard on : 11/08/2025 Judgment on : 11/08/2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J. :

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. 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.30 dated July 26, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.

Div.), 2^nd Court at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas in Ejectment Suit No.284 of 2018.

3. By the order impugned the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was rejected and consequently the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession was struck out under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act on the ground that the petitioner did not file the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of 1997 Act within the time limits stipulated thereunder.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the summons of the suit was not served. After being aware of the filing of the eviction suit the petitioner entered appearance in the suit by filing a Vakalatnama and immediately thereafter filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further submits that Section 7(1) (b) of the 1997 Act states that the deposit of arrears shall be made within one month of the date of appearance in a case where the defendant appears without service of summons being served upon him. He submits that since the summons of the suit was not served upon the petitioner, the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act ought to have been held to be filed within the stipulated time limit.

5. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the summons of the suit was served as would be evident from the bailiff report wherein he has reported that the summons had been returned with the remark “not claimed”. He submits that thereafter the learned trial judge passed an order directing paper publication and in terms of such order the paper publication was made on August 13, 2022. The learned advocate further submits that the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act were filed only on December 7, 2022, i.e., more than three months from the date of paper publication. He, therefore, submits that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the applications Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act and consequently striking out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession.

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

7. In course of hearing of the civil revision application, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner files the certified copy of the order sheet containing the orders from order No.1 till the order No.31 dated August 12, 2024. It appears from the order No.11 dated May 11, 2022 that the plaintiff/opposite parties herein filed an application supported by an affidavit stating that the summons sent to the defendant has been returned with the remark “not claimed” and hence prayed for substituted service under the provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure being filed by the plaintiff/opposite parties herein, the learned trial judge by an order dated May 11, 2022 allowed the prayer under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby directing the opposite parties to take steps for substituted service of summons upon the defendants by an advertisement in Bengali Daily which is being circulated widely in the locality in which the defendant is last