IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 633 of 2025 Shachindra Kumar Jha & Ors.

VS.

Asha Bansal & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rachit Lakhmani Mr. Shubham Gupta Mr. Piyush Kumar Mr. Raunak Shaw Mr. Raj Sekhar Bal Bakshi ….. advocates For the Opposite Party : Mr. Manabendra Saha Ray Mr. Sabita Mukherjee Mr. Arijeet Das Mullick Mr. Anirban Saha Ray Ms. Sneha Singh Ms. Shreya Choudhury Mr. Sanket Das …. advocates Reserved on : 05.03.2025 Judgment on : 13.03.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 38 of 2022.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (for short “the 1997 Act”) stood dismissed and the defense of the petitioner against delivery of possession was struck off.

3. The opposite party herein filed a suit for eviction under Section 6 of the

1997 Act being Ejectment Suit No. 38 of 2022 inter alia on the ground of default, unauthorized construction and subletting. After service of summons, petitioner appeared in the said suit and filed an application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act praying for an order permitting the petitioner to deposit the rent for the month of August, 2021 to May, 2022 and September, 2022 along with statutory interest at the rate of 10% per annum as well as the current rent for the month of October, 2022. Petitioners also filed an application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act praying for adjudication of the dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the petitioners are defaulters in payment of rent.

4. The plaintiffs/opposite party herein contested the said application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act by filing a written objection denying the material allegations contained therein.

5. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application under Section 7(2) of the

1997 Act on the ground that the deposits made for the months of June 2022, July 2022 and August 2022 are invalid deposits as the same were not preceded by valid tender.

6. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners deposited the rent for the months of August, 2021 to May, 2022 and September, 2022 to October, 2022 pursuant to the order dated July 11, 2024 passed by the learned Trial Judge on an application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. He further submitted that the rents for the months of June, 2022 and July, 2022 could not be deposited within time due to digitization of the records of the Rent Control Office and the petitioners were not responsible in any manner for such delay. He further submitted that the learned Trial Judge ought to have allowed an opportunity to the petitioners herein to deposit the rents for the months of June 2022, July 2022 and August 2022 within the time limit as specified under Section 7(2) of the

1997 Act.

7. Per contra, Mr. Saha Ray, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the summons were served upon the petitioners herein on 29.09.2022 and the petitioners instead of depositing the admitted arrear along with current rent filed an application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act when Section 7(1) does not contemplate filing of any application. He further contended that the deposit of arrear of rent along with the current rent together with interest on 02.08.2024 were not made in accordance with the provisions laid down under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. By referring to a judgment passed by this Court on 14.05.2024 in CO 3452 of 2023 in the case of The West Bengal Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited vs. Jayanta Saha, Mr. Saha Ray contended that Section 7(1) does not contemplate filing of any application and, therefore, the tenant cannot take rec