CO/926/2025 of AJIT PAUL ALIAS AJIT PAL Vs AMIT ROY on 21 September 2026

Sl.1 21.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 926 of 2025

Ajit Paul alias Ajit Pal -versus- Amit Roy

Ms. Subhangi Bhattacharya ..for the petitioner

Mr. Amit Kumar Rakshit ..for the opposite party

Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order” but with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties this civil revisional application is taken up for final hearing. This application under Article of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being no.31 dated 27th January, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalna, Purba Bardhaman in Title Suit No. 236 of 2019. By the order impugned the application under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 stood rejected and a date was fixed for hearing of the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Ms. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application under Section

7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was filed within the prescribed time limit. She submits that the hearing of the application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was adjourned from time to time and instead of passing any order directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent in terms of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act, the learned trial judge rejected the said application under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. She further places reliance upon an order dated 27th August, 2025 passed in C.O. 3085 of 2025 in the case of Pranab Kumar Dey & Ors. Vs. Nishit Porey in support of her contention that a litigant should not suffer for the default on the part of the court in not disposing of the application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act within the prescribed time limit. Mr. Rakshit, learned advocate appears for the opposite party. He submits that there has been non- compliance of the provisions of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. He submits that the impugned order should not be interfered with by the learned trial judge. Record reveals that on 22nd December, 2022 the petitioner filed an application under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It appears from the order being no.10 dated 22nd

December, 2022 that the petitioner filed challan by way of a list which was kept on record. It appears from the ordersheet that the petitioner tendered challans from time to time for deposit of rent before the learned trial judge. The grievance of the petitioner is that said challans were not passed by the office of the learned trial judge for which the petitioner could not deposit the arrears of rent. Even if such allegation of the petitioner is taken at its face value this Court fails to understand as to what steps the petitioner took after tendering the challans before the learned trial judge. It appears from the ordersheets appended to this civil revisional application that the petitioner after tendering the challans before the learned trial judge did not make any enquiry from the office of the learned trial judge as to what is the fate such challans which were tendered by the petitioner before the learned trial judge. The learned trial judge specifically recorded that the petitioner did not pay a singly penny against he submitted challans nor prayed for passing of the challans. Thus, it appears that the petitioner did not take any steps after tendering of the challans. It appears to this Court that the petitioner was not interested in complying with the provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. It is now well settled that the time limit fixed under Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) of the 1997 Act and the first part of

Section 7(2) requiring filing of the application and depositing the admitted rent is mandatory and non- compliance thereof would result in the defence against delivery of possession be struck out. The learned trial judge took note of the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the decisions on the issue involved and rejected the applications under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act by a speaking order. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. In Pranab Kumar Dey & Ors. the date for hearing of the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act was fixed long after the expiry of thirty days from the service of summons for which this Court held that the petitioner could not have been faulted for not making a deposit pursuant to the order passed by the learned trial judge. In the case hand the petitioner was well aware of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act that Section 7(1) does not contemplate filing of an application but requires deposit of the arrears of rent for which the challans were tendered by the petitioner from time to time. The said decision being distinguishable on fact cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. Accordingly C.O. 926 of 2025 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)