Court No. 6 CO 998 of 2025 (265719)

25.03.2025 Shachindra Kumar Jha & Anr.

(AD 25) Vs.

Asha Bansal & Ors.

(S. Banerjee)

Mr. Rachit Lakhmani Mr. Shubham Gupta Ms. Emon Bhattacharjee Ms. Pooja Shah Mr. Piyush Kumar Mr. Raunak Shaw Mr. Rajsekhar Bal Bakshi …for the petitioners Mr. Rupak Ghosh Ms. Sabita Mukherjee Roy Chowdhury Mr. Megnad Dutta Mr. Arijeet Doss Mullick Mr. Sanket Das Ms. Sneha Singh Ms. Sukriti Sengupta …for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against orders being nos. 19 and 21 dated December 19, 2024 and February 25, 2025 respectively, both passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 19 of 2022.

By the order dated December 19, 2024, the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 stood rejected and the defence of the petitioners against delivery of possession was also struck off. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recalling the order dated December 19, 2024 which stood rejected by the order being no. 21 dated February 25, 2025. The opposite parties filed a suit for eviction under Section 6 of the 1997 Act. After entering appearance in the said suit, the defendants/petitioners herein filed an application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act praying for adjudication as to whether the petitioners are defaulters in payment of rent and if the petitioners are found to be defaulters, to allow the petitioners to deposit the amount in arrears in easy instalments. The learned trial Judge noted in the order dated December 19, 2024 that the learned advocate for the petitioners have admitted that the deposits for the months of July, 2022, August, 2022 and October, 2022 are bad deposits and on the basis of such admission the learned trial Judge was of the view that rent for the aforesaid months being not deposited along with the application as contemplated under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act was dismissed and consequently the defence of the petitioners against delivery of possession was struck off.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned advocate for the petitioner before the learned trial Judge filed an affidavit stating that such admission were not made by the learned advocate for the petitioners in course of hearing of the Section 7(2) application on December 19, 2024. However, the learned trial Judge rejected the application under Section 151 of the CPC by not accepting such statement of the learned advocate for the petitioners.

Even if it is accepted that the learned advocate made certain admissions, it is well settled that admission by a counsel on a point of law, cannot bind the client.

The larger issue is whether the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act could have been dismissed only on the ground that the rent for the months of July, 2022, August, 2022 and October, 2022 were not deposited in compliance of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act.

Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act stands attracted if there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant. Section 7(1) is subject to the provisions of Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. Thus the tenant has to deposit arrears of rent under Section 7(1) of the

1997 Act, which is not in dispute.

Petitioner claims to have deposited rent for the months of July, 2022, August, 2022 and October, 2022 before the Rent Controller and such deposits, according to the opposite party, are bad deposits. Thus, there is a dispute as to whether the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent for the aforesaid months. This Court, therefore, holds that the learned trial Judge was not right in holding that the petitioners have foregone their right to deposit the