C.O. 1521 of 2023 07.07.2026 Sl no. 24 Smt. Dipali Mondal & Ors. Ct no. 2 - Vs – P.M. Sri Proloy Kumar Das Mr. Tanmay Basu, Mr. Sayon Banerjee, Mr. Rajib Sadhukhan ... for the petitioners. Ms. Shohini Chakrabarty, Ms. Prajaini Das ... for the opposite party. 1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9th February, 2023 whereby the defence of the petitioner/defendant has been struck off by the learned Trial Court for the non-compliance of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as WBPT Act, 1997). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/defendant had deposited the entire rent in terms of Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997 and, therefore, the order of the learned Trial Court striking out of the defence is totally erroneous. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the defence was struck off and application under Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997 was rejected without any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to section 7(4) of the WBPT Act 1997. Learned counsel further submits that in terms of Section 7(4) of the WBPT Act, 1997 the learned Trial Court should not have ordered for the recovery of the possession and at the best the fine could have been imposed. 4. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the opposite party/plaintiff submits that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel has invited the attention of paragraph 9 of the suit filed wherein it was specifically stated that petitioner/defendant are in erroneous of rent since April, 2019. 6. Learned counsel further has invited the attention to the application under Section 7(1) of the WBPT Act, 1997 wherein paragraph 5 it was admitted that the petitioner/defendant had received the summons of the suit on 16th September, 2020. 2 7. Learned counsel, therefore, has invited the attention to the impugned order whereby it has been submitted that the rent was deposited by the petitioner/defendant /tenant on 21st January, 2023 which is beyond the period of one month and, therefore, the default has been committed. 8. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed as there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Trial Court. 9. Before proceeding further it is advantageous to refer to Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997. Bare perusal of Section 7(1) of the WBPT Act, 1997 makes it clear that within one month of the service of summons of the tenant, the tenant shall either pay to the landlord or deposit with the court the rent at the rate of last paid rent and from the period from which it has not been paid along with interest @ 10%. 10. Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997comes into play if there is any dispute as to the amount of the rent payable by the tenant. 3 11. In such a case, the tenant along with an application for determination of the rent shall deposit the admitted rent. In case of non-compliance of Section 7(1) or Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997, the legislature has provided that the defence of the tenant shall be struck off. 12. Section 7(4) of the WBPT Act is a concession given to the tenant that if the rent has been deposited under Section 7(1) and 7(2) the Rent Controller shall not order for the recovery of possession and may only impose the fine. 13. The jurisprudence of the Rent Control Act is simply that the eviction can be sought only on the specific ground mentioned in such laws. Therefore, the protection has been given by the legislature to the tenants. However, at the same time in order to balance the interest the legislature in its wisdom has provided harsh consequence for non compliance with the provisions in particular regarding the payment of rent. 14. In Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School – Vs – Ismat Ahmed & Ors. 2025 4 LiveLaw (SC) 811 it was inter alia held as paragraph 33 reproduced herein : 33. At this juncture, we also deem it relevant to refer sub-section (3) of Section 7, wherein it is specified that if tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) within the time specified therein or within such extended time as may be granted by the court, his defence against delivery of possession shall be struck out. So it deals with the following contingencies; first is of Section 7(1) (a) (b) (c), second is of former part of Section 7(2) and third is of latter part of section 7(2) and in default of either of the situations, the Judge shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit specifying the consequences of failure to do any of the three situations. While using the word extended time in sub-section (3), the word shall has been used, therefore, this would also be referable to the provision which leads to 5 the conclusion that in case, the tenant fails to deposit the determined amount within the time specified or within the extended time. In that contingency the order of striking out of defence be passed and suit be proceeded for hearing. As explained from above discussion, we are constrained to say that the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the judgement in Debasish Paul (supra) are not germane, hence repelled.” 15. The bare perusal of the reading along with Section 7(1) of the WBPT Act, 1997 makes it clear that concession is available to the tenant only if there has been compliance of Section 7(1) and 7(2) within the time limit provided in the statute. If Section 7(1) is read as the learned counsel for the petitioners wants to read, then Section 7(3) would become redundant. In such a case, if the rent has been deposited even with the delay the Court shall not be able to order for the recovery of the possession. 6 16. This court considers that this cannot be interpretation of the law. 17. In view of the facts and circumstances the Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court. 18. Hence the petition is dismissed. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all usual requisite formalities. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.) 7