Dismissed¶19

Dilip Barma and Anr. v. M/S Gangaram and Sons (Financiers) Pvt. Ltd.

Calcutta HC18 Sept 2025CO/267/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 — Sections 7(1), 7(2), 7(3); defence against delivery of possession struck out; rent not deposited after December 2018; arrear rent with interest; Title Suit No. 59 of 2014; Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Additional Court, Purba Bardhaman; Order No. 131 dated May 20, 2024; CO 267 of 2025 dismissed; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners admittedly did not deposit rent after December 2018; there was thus non-compliance on their part with the provisions of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. ¶16

Dilip Barma and Anr. Vs M/S Gangaram and Sons… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order no. 131 dated May 20, 2024, striking out the petitioners' defence against delivery of possession under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, suffers from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Court's answer

The petitioners admittedly did not deposit rent after December 2018; there was thus non-compliance on their part with the provisions of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial judge's factual finding that the defendant failed to comply with the order of the court and with Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 could not be controverted by the petitioners' counsel in course of his argument.

¶17

Key takeaways

The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; accordingly, CO 267 of 2025 stands dismissed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CO 267 of 2025 (decided 18.09.2025, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.). Article 227 application by the defendant-petitioners (Dilip Barma & Anr., represented by Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh) against Order No. 131 dated May 20, 2024 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Additional Court, Purba Bardhaman in Title Suit No. 59 of 2014, by which the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was allowed and the petitioners' defence against delivery of possession was struck out. The petitioners had deposited rent per Section 7(1) only till December 2018 and conceded that later rent was not deposited; their counsel could not controvert the trial court's factual finding of non-compliance with Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act; the offer to deposit arrear rent along with interest did not avail. Held: the impugned order suffers from no infirmity warranting interference under Article 227; CO 267 of 2025 dismissed.

Court No. 6

CO 267 of 2025

(265719)

18.09.2025

(A 842)

Dilip Barma & Anr. Vs.

¶7

M/s. Gangaram & Sons (Financiers) Pvt. Ltd.

(S. Banerjee)

Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh

…for the petitioners

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. 131 dated May 20, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1^st Additional Court, Purba Bardhaman in Title Suit No. 59 of 2014. By the order impugned, the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was allowed thereby striking out the defence of the petitioners for delivery of possession.

¶12

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners deposited rent in compliance with the provisions of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act till the month of December, 2018. However, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, in his usual fairness, submits that rent after the month of December, 2018 was not deposited. He submits that the petitioners be

¶13

¶14

permitted to deposit the arrear rent along with interest.

¶15

Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act states that if the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-Section 1 or 2 of Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act within the time specified therein or within such extended time as may be granted, the court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. Admittedly the petitioners did not deposit the rent after December, 2018.

¶16

Thus, there was non-compliance on the part of the petitioners of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The learned trial judge after considering the materials on record arrived at a factual finding that the defendant has failed to comply with the order of the court and the provisions of law as incorporated under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

¶17

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in course of his argument could not controvert such factual finding arrived at by the learned trial judge.

¶18

¶19

The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, CO 267 of 2025 stands dismissed.

¶20

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Dilip Barma and Anr. v. M/S Gangaram and Sons (Financiers) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Barma and Anr. v. M/S Gangaram and Sons (Financiers) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhi Bhattacharjee Vs Payal Bhattacharjee Nee Bannerjee

Bijay Kr Maity and Anr. Vs Gauranga Mal and Ors.

Jyotindra Nath Ghosh and Ors. Vs Jagachha Bayam Samity

Bishnu Shankar Chakraborty and Anr. Vs Subhra Chakraborty and Ors.

Bishnu Shankar Chakraborty and Ors. Vs Subhra Chakraborty and Ors.

Sekh Kutubuddin Vs Panchanan Das