Dismissed¶20

Jay Prakash Gupta v. Ratna Devi and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Aug 2025CO/699/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 revision against rejection of Section 7(1) application under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997; deposit of arrears of rent mandatory, mere filing of application not enough; arrears at last paid rate up to end of previous month with interest @ 10% per annum; one month from appearance; Ejectment Suit; substituted service Order 5 Rule 20 CPC; paper publication and bailiff affixation; ex parte hearing vacated on cost of Rs. 3,000/-; revision dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 does not contemplate filing of an application; the tenant is obliged to pay to the landlord or deposit with the civil judge all arrears of rent. ¶16

Jay Prakash Gupta Vs Ratna Devi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner complied with Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which obliges the tenant to pay or deposit all arrears of rent (and not merely file an application) within the stipulated time, and whether the learned trial judge rightly rejected his application under Section 7(1). +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The arrears of rent must be 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.

¶16

Key takeaways

The admitted arrears of rent were not deposited by the petitioner at the time of filing the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) on 9th April, 2024, and it is not in dispute that they were not deposited even within one month from the date of appearance in the suit.ratio¶16
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.ratio¶18
The petitioner did not comply with the provisions laid down under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revisional application (C.O. 699 of 2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 149 of 2022 against order no.24 dated 4th January, 2025 of the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, rejecting his application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Summons was served by paper publication and by affixation on the outer door of the defendant's room (bailiff's report dated 25th September, 2023); the defendant entered appearance on 18th March, 2024 and obtained vacatur of the ex parte hearing subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as cost. Applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act were filed on 9th April, 2024 without depositing the admitted arrears of rent. Held: Section 7(1) of the Act does not contemplate mere filing of an application; the tenant must pay 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 payment is made, together with interest @ 10% per annum. The admitted arrears not having been deposited even within one month of appearance, the petitioner did not comply with Section 7 and the trial judge rightly rejected the application. Revision dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

A.1030 05.08.2025 Court No.6 BP

¶2

C.O. 699 of 2025 Sri Jay Prakash Gupta Vs. Smt. Ratna Devi & Ors.

¶3

Mr. Anshunath Chakraborty Mr. G. Mukhopadhyay ..for the petitioner

¶4

Mr. Arindam Sadhukhan Mrs. Fatima Hassan ..for the opposite parties

¶5

This application under Article 227 of the

¶6

Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being no.24 dated 4^th January, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, 2^nd Bench Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 149 of 2022.

¶7

By the order impugned the application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 stood rejected.

¶8

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 15^th March, 2024 came to know that the Ejectment Suit No. 149 of 2022 has

¶9

¶10

been filed and the same is fixed for hearing on 18^th March, 2024. He further submits that immediately thereafter on 18^th 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 9^th 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

It appears from the order dated 13^th 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 25^th 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 12^th May, 2022 as well as with the approved draft of publication. The learned trial judge further recorded that till 1.30 p.m. on 18^th 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 20^th 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 2^nd February,

¶15

¶16

By an order dated 2^nd February, 2024 the learned trial judge fixed 18^th March, 2024 for ex parte hearing. On 18^th 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 29^th 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 9^th 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

¶17

¶18

date of appearance in the said suit. The learned trial judge noted that summons was served on 25^th September, 2023 but the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act was filed only on 9^th April, 2024.

¶19

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.

¶20

Accordingly, C.O. 699 of 2025 stands dismissed.

¶21

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

¶22

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

¶23

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Jay Prakash Gupta v. Ratna Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash Gupta v. Ratna Devi and Ors.

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

Girik Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Paritosh Roy and Ors.

Vinty Khemani and Ors. Vs Ghanshyam Das Harnathka and Ors.

Ruhul Amin Sha Vs Fani Bhushan Dolai and Anr.

Swapan Manna and Anr. Vs Ruma Mukherjee and Ors.

Asraf Ali Vs Kamrujjaman and Ors.

Sahana Haque Vs Mohammad Saukat Hossain @ Md. Saukat Hossain