Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Jay Prakash Gupta vs Smt. Ratna Devi & Ors on 5 August, 2025
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
A.1030 05.08.2025
Court No.6
BP
C.O. 699 of 2025
Sri Jay Prakash Gupta
Vs.
Smt. Ratna Devi & Ors.
Mr. Anshunath Chakraborty
Mr. G. Mukhopadhyay
..for the petitioner
Mr. Arindam Sadhukhan
Mrs. Fatima Hassan
..for the opposite parties
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.24 dated 4th
January, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench
Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment
Suit No. 149 of 2022.
By the order impugned the application under
Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,
1997 stood rejected.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that the summons of the suit was not served
upon the petitioner. The petitioner came to know from
one of the tenants of the suit building that an eviction
suit might have been filed against the petitioner in
respect of the tenanted shop room and immediately
thereafter contacted the learned advocate and after
obtaining the information slip on 15th March, 2024 came
to know that the Ejectment Suit No. 149 of 2022 has
2
been filed and the same is fixed for hearing on 18th
March, 2024. He further submits that immediately
thereafter on 18th March, 2024 the petitioner entered
appearance in the said suit and filed an application for
vacating the order of ex parte hearing and for permitting
the petitioner to file the written statement. He submits
that the petitioner filed the application under Section
7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act on 9th April, 2024
i.e. within a month from the date of appearance and in
view of the provisions laid down under Section 7(1) of the
1997 Act, the learned trial judge ought to have
considered the said application and permitted the
petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent.
The learned advocate appearing for the opposite
party submits that the petitioner intentionally avoided
service of summons for which steps had to be taken for
substituted service under the provisions of Order 5 Rule
20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Paper publication was
made and after a long time thereafter the petitioner
entered appearance in the said suit. She further submits
that the petitioner also did not deposit the arrear rent
within the time limit stipulated under Section 7(1) of the
1997 Act.
In course of hearing of the civil revisional
application the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner produces a bunch of orders starting from order
no.1 to order no.16 passed in Ejectment Suit No. 149 of
3
2022. It appears from the order dated 13th September,
2023 that the draft notice for newspaper publication was
checked and verified and it was found to be correct and
the office was directed to hand over the draft copy of the
notice to the learned advocate for the plaintiff for paper
publication and the department was directed to issue
summons in terms of the order dated July 31, 2023 and
October 18, 2023 was fixed for filing the copy of the
newspaper and for awaiting the bailiff report. The learned
trial judge perused the report of the bailiff dated 25th
September, 2023 wherefrom it appears that the bailiff
has affixed the notice of the suit on the outer door of the
defendant’s room. The learned trial judge perused the
copy of the newspaper publication and recorded its
prima facie satisfaction that the same was made in terms
of the order dated 12th May, 2022 as well as with the
approved draft of publication. The learned trial judge
further recorded that till 1.30 p.m. on 18th October, 2023
neither the defendant nor anybody on his behalf
appeared. In order to afford another opportunity to the
defendant to appear and contest the suit the learned trial
judge fixed December 20, 2023 for appearance of the
defendant and in default necessary orders shall be
passed. On 20th December, 2023 no steps were taken by
the defendants. The learned trial judge thereafter fixed
the suit on the ex parte board and a date was fixed for
appearance before the transferee court on 2nd February,
4
2024. By an order dated 2nd February, 2024 the learned
trial judge fixed 18th March, 2024 for ex parte hearing.
On 18th March, 2024 the learned advocate for the
petitioner appeared in the suit and filed an application
praying for vacating the ex parte hearing. Such prayer
was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- by
the defendant to the plaintiff and 29th April, 2024 was
fixed for filing of the written statement and for payment
of cost. Thereafter the petitioner filed the applications
under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy
Act and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises
Tenancy Act. In the application under Section 7(1) of the
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act the petitioner has
stated that the plaintiff had stopped to receive the
payment of rent since December, 2011. However the
admitted arrears of rent was not deposited by the
petitioner on 9th April, 2024 i.e. at the time of filing the
application under Section 7(1) and Section 7 (2) of the
1997 Act. It is well settled that Section 7(1) of the West
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act does not contemplate filing
of an application and the tenant is obliged to pay to the
landlord or deposit with the civil judge all arrears of rent
calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and up to
the end of the month previous to that in which the
payment is made together with interest @ 10% per
annum. It is not in dispute that the admitted arrears of
rent was not deposited even within one month from the
5
date of appearance in the said suit. The learned trial
judge noted that summons was served on 25th
September, 2023 but the application under Section 7(1)
of the 1997 Act was filed only on 9th April, 2024.
In view of the reasons as aforesaid this Court is of
the considered view that the petitioner did not comply
with the provisions laid down under Section 7 of the
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned trial
judge was right in rejecting the application under Section
7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Accordingly, C.O. 699 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.)