M/L- 32 13/07/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 1570 of 2026 Mst. Tasheen Haider Vs. Ramiz Rahaman Mr. Partha Pratim Roy ….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 dated November 17, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court at Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.183 of 2018. By the order impugned the applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “1997 Act”) stood rejected and consequently the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession was struck out under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that immediately upon receipt of the summons, the petitioner took out two applications, one under Section 7(1) and the other under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. He submits that there has been no default on the part of the petitioner in depositing the rent month by month in Court after entering appearance in the said suit. He submits that the learned trial judge exceeded its jurisdiction by rejecting the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act on the ground of subsequent default. 2 The opposite party filed a suit for eviction under Section 6 of the 1997 Act. The petitioner filed two applications, one under Section 7(1) and the other under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. The petitioner has prayed for permission to deposit the rent on and from the month of August, 2018 before the learned trial judge. The learned trial judge after going through the materials on record recorded a specific finding that prior to filing of the aforesaid applications the petitioner was depositing rent before the rent controller. The learned trial judge after considering the challans filed by the petitioner has specifically recorded that rent for the months of June to October, 2021 was deposited on November 22, 2021; rent for the months of August and September, 2022 was deposited on September 13, 2022 and rent for the months of September and October, 2023 was deposited on October 12, 2023. After taking note of the aforesaid factual position the learned trial judge took note of the provisions under Section 7(1)(c) which states that the tenant shall thereafter continue to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Civil Judge month by month by the 15th of the each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. The learned trial judge rightly recorded that the deposit of rent made by clubbing of rents is neither valid nor in accordance with law. 3 Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act states that if the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) within the time specified therein or within such extended time as may be granted, the Civil Judge shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the learned trial judge ought to have decided the dispute as to the landlord tenant relationship on the application filed under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. After going through the averments made in the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, this Court finds that the landlord-tenant dispute raised therein is sham dispute. That apart it is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no default prior to the service of summons upon the defendant. Thus, the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. This Court holds that the deposits made by the petitioner was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(1)(c) of the 1997 Act. The learned trial judge, was thus right in invoking the provisions of Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act thereby striking out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession. 4 The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above observations, CO 1570 of 2026 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)