Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Basant Kumar Gupta @ B.K. Gupta vs Israth Begum & Ors on 17 June, 2025
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
D/L- 10 17/06/2025
Ct. No.-6
Aritra C.O. 1995 of 2025
Basant Kumar Gupta @ B.K. Gupta
Vs.
Israth Begum & Ors.
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee
Mr. Kaustav Bhattacharya
Ms. Priyanka Jana
…for the petitioner
This application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant
and is directed against an order being No.6 dated April
21, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 3rd
Court at Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.197 of 2023.
By the order impugned the application under
Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,
1997 stood rejected.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that after service of summons the
petitioner entered appearance in the suit and filed the
applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act
on September 19, 2024. He submits that the summons
was served on September 10, 2024. He further submits
that the admitted arrears of rent was deposited on
October 1, 2024 but, however, the statutory interest was
deposited only on April 21, 2025. He further submits
that the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time for
depositing the statutory interest by applying the proviso
2
which is appearing after Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act.
Even if the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mukherjee is
accepted, this Court has to consider prima facie as to
whether the petitioner complied with the requirements
under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act within the time limit
prescribed in the proviso appearing after Section 7(2) of
the 1997 Act.
Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act states that if in any
suit referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as
the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the tenant
shall, within the time specified in that sub-section,
deposit with the civil judge the amount admitted by him
to be due from him together with an application for
determination of the rent payable. Thus, the tenant was
required to deposit the admitted arrears of rent along
with the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act.
The admitted arrears would also include the statutory
interest of 10% per annum.
In the case on hand the petitioner did not deposit
the admitted arrears of rent along with the filing of the
application. Even if the contention of Mr. Mukherjee is
accepted that the petitioner is entitled to an extension of
time as stipulated in the proviso then the petitioner was
required to deposit the admitted arrears of rent within
the period of two months. Though the petitioner
deposited the amount of arrear rent within a period of
one month from the date of filing of the application
3
under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, but the statutory
interest that the petitioner was also required to deposit
along with the said application was deposit after two
months of filing of such application.
For such reason, this Court holds even the proviso
to Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act cannot come to the aid of
the petitioner in the case on hand.
The learned trial judge was right in rejecting the
application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act as the
pre-conditions for adjudication of such application has
not been satisfied in the case on hand.
For such reasons the ultimate conclusion arrived
at by the learned trial judge does not call for any
interference by this Court.
According, CO 1995 of 2025 stands dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance
with all requisite formalities.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)