16.01.2026 Item No.1 Ct. No. 30 Aloke CO 141 of 2022 Tarak Nath Banerjee Vs Prantosh Kumar Saha Mr. Prantick Ghosh Ms. Poulomi Saha Ms. Shravani Ghosh … for the petitioner Mr. Tarak Nath Halder … for the opposite party

1. The revisional application has been preferred against an order dated 10.12.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1^st Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas, in Ejectment Suit No. 62 of 2011, allowing the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, filed by the plaintiff/opposite party.

2. Vide the order under challenge, the trial Court held as follows:-

“……..On perusal of the record, it appears that this Court had disposed of the application under Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997 vide order dated 24.07.2014 with the observation that there are no arrears of rent. In such a situation, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has not paid arrears of rent does not hold good. However, as per Section 7(1)(c) of the WBPT Act, 1997, the tenant shall continue to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Civil Judge month by month by the 15^th of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent. In the instant suit, even though the defendant did not have any arrears to pay, he was under the obligation to comply with the afore-mentioned provision. The defendant has filed Challans to show that he has been paying amount equivalent to rent but it is surprising to see that the defendant has been depositing the same before the Ld. Rent Controller and not this Court, or directly to the landlord. The law, as stated in Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act, 1997 clearly states that if the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7, the Court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. It is very much evident that the defendant is not complying with the provision of Section 7(1) of the WBPT Act, 1997 and the deposit made before the Office of Rent Controller cannot be treated as valid deposits. As such, I am inclined to allow the prayer of the plaintiff.

Hence, it is ORDERED that, the application under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act, 1997 is hereby allowed on contest. The defence of the defendant against delivery of possession is hereby struck out.”

3. Learned counsels for both the parties have filed their respective written notes of argument along with judgments relied upon. The opposite party has also filed an affidavit along with copies of documents stating that there is further default by the defendant/petitioner herein.

4. It is the specific case of the defendant/petitioner herein that during hearing of the present revisional application, the petitioner has filed relevant documents being the challans by way of a supplementary affidavit on 19.03.2025 to show that he has diligently deposited amount equivalent to the monthly rent with the rent controller vide serial nos. 1 to 147 of the supplementary affidavit.

5. Thereafter since September 2022 till the present time the tenant/petitioner has deposited rent with the learned court officer vide serial nos.

148 to 175 and continuing.

6. The argument of the present petitioner/tenant is that the learned Judge misunderstood the scope of Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act. There is admittedly no default on the part of the tenant, but there is irregular deposit of the amount of rent before the controller instead of learned Court/landlord.

7. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that there is any willful default at any point of time on part of tenant. The tenant respectfully submits before this Court that due to such irregular deposit of rent, defence cannot be struck off.

8. The petitioner relies upon the following judgments:-

i) Monoj Lal Seal & Ors. vs. Octavious Tea and Industries Limited (2015) 8 SCC 640;

“22. It is worth to mention here that as against the finding of the trial court that since the respondent tenant deposited th