CO/307/2026 of MOUSUMI MOITRA Vs RAM PROSAD PURKAIT AND ORS. on 20 August 2026

1. The learned advocate representing the opposite parties submits that, all the tenants have not been implicated in the present revisional application.

2. Learned advocate representing the petitioner is at liberty to rectify the cause title of the revisional application during the course of the day.

3. The learned advocate representing the petitioner/tenant submits that, summons was not received by the tenant and there is no endorsement to that effect.

4. As such one of the ground on which the application under Section 7 sub-Section (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1997, Act”) has been rejected is not applicable.

5. As such, the tenant could not comply with the provisions laid down under Section 7 (1) of the said Act of 1997. She further submits that, in the written statement it has been mentioned that there was no endorsement of the tenant in the summon but in the application under Section

7 (2) it has not been mentioned. On this ground the rejection of the Trial Court is not in accordance with law.

6. Per contra the learned advocate representing the opposite parties/landlords submits that, apart from depositing rent, a tenant shall pay 10% as interest per annum in respect of the arrear rent, but the petitioner tenant herein, has not complied with the said proviso laid down under the said Act of 1997. As such the impugned order no. 109, dated 29.10.2025, is in accordance with law and the revisional application is to be rejected.

7. On hearing the learned advocates representing petitioner/tenant and the opposite parties/landlords and on perusal of the impugned order and Section 7 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, it transpires that the petitioner tenant has paid the arrear rent from May 2016 to August 2018, but has not deposited 10% interest per annum which has been laid down under Section 7 (1) Clause (a) which states as follows: “7. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction.-(1) (a) On a proceeding being instituted by the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in Section 6, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of sub- Section (2) of this section, pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller all arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it was lat paid and up to the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum.”

8. It is also fact that as regards to receipt of summons nothing has been agitated by the petitioner tenant in the said application filed under Section 7(2) of the said Act of 1997.

9. Considering the non-compliance of the provisions laid down under Section 7 (1) Clause (a) of the Act, 1997, the order under challenge has been passed and as there is non-compliance of deposition of the 10% interest amount so the application under Section 7(2) of the said Act 1997, has been rejected.

10. This Court is of the view that the impugned order is in accordance with law and does not require interference. Hence this revisional application is rejected.

11. At this stage the learned advocate representing the opposite parties/landlords submits that, the suit for eviction is of the year, 2016 and just in the year 2025 the application under Section 7(2) has been disposed of and issues have been framed, in such situation seeks expeditious disposal of the suit.

12. Considering the fact that the eviction suit is of the year, 2016, the learned Trial Court is requested to proceed expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments.

13. Accordingly, CO 307 of 2026 is thus disposed of. No costs.

14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)