C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 29.07.26 D/L Sl-06 Ct. 06 (Samar) CO. 1715 of 2026 Amal Kumar Das Vs. Bijay Gopal Saha & Ors. Mr. Saunak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mandal, Mr. Anirban Saha Roy, Mr. Bipasha Bhattacharyya, … for the petitioner. Mr. Supratick Syamal, Mr. Arkarupa Roy, ….for the opposite party. 1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated February 13, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 4th Court, at Alipore in the Ejectment Suit No. 110 of 2021 whereby the petitioner’s application seeking extension of time to deposit the rent arrears determined under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 has been rejected. 2. The opposite parties have instituted Ejectment Suit No. 110 of 2021 for eviction of the petitioner inter alia on the ground of reasonable requirement and default. 3. In the said suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. The said application was disposed of by an order dated April 02, 2024 determining the arrears of rent and directing the petitioner to pay the determined 2 amount within one month from the date of passing of such order. 4. The petitioner failed to deposit the determined amount within the time specified in the order. However, the petitioner made an application on June 03, 2024 praying for extension of time to deposit the amount determined under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. 5. The learned Trial Court has rejected the said application by the order impugned by observing that as the petitioner has failed to comply with the order dated April 02, 2024 by depositing the same determined amount within one month therefore the defence of the petitioner was liable to be struck out upon the period mentioned in the order having expired. 6. Feeling aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present revisional application. 7. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application for extension of time had been made by the petitioner within the period of two months from the date of the order, i.e. at a time when the learned Trial Court had power to extend the time for payment of the determined amount. It is submitted that in such view of the matter, the learned Trial Court could not 3 have rejected the petitioner’s application. In support of his contention, he relies on a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sri Amitava Sen Vs. Sri. Anup Kumar Dey and others reported at (2018)5 CHN 492. 8. Mr. Syamal, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties supports the order impugned and submits that upon the petitioner failing to put in the determined sum within the period prescribed in the order, the provisions of Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act got triggered. 9. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 10. The proviso to Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, provides that the learned Civil Judge can extend the time for payment of the determined sum only once and the period of extension would not exceed two months. 11. In the case at hand, the order determining the sum payable under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act had been passed on April 02, 2024. The petitioner had been directed to deposit the determined amount within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order. That bring so, the petitioner was required to deposit the said sum within May 02, 2024. The petitioner failed to do so. However, the petitioner made an application for extension of 4 time on June 03, 2024. Going by the time strictly, the learned Trial Court had jurisdiction to extend the time from May 02, 2024 to two months thereafter. In the wake of such facts the application filed by the petitioner must be held to be within time. 12. Sri. Amitava Sen (supra) has clearly held that an application for extension of time can be filed even after expiry of one month from the order under Section 7(2) but prior to the last statutory limit for further two months. The said judgment clarifies that the last limit within which the tenant has to deposit the arrears rent as adjudicated under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act as well as to file the application for extension of time to pay/deposit beyond one month from the date of the order under Section 7(2) is three months from the date of the order passed under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. 13. In the case at hand, the petitioner’s application was well within the aforesaid period and that being so, the learned Trial Court ought to have adjudicated the petitioner’s application for extension of time on merits but the learned Trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s application only on the ground that the determined amount had not been deposited within the time given in the order. The order dated February 13, 2026 therefore warrants interference 5 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. For all the reasons aforesaid, the order dated February 13, 2026 is set aside. The petitioner’s application for extension of time shall now be reconsidered by the learned Trial Court on merits. The parties shall be free to make appropriate submissions on the said application before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court is requested to dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible. 15. C.O 1715 of 2026 stands disposed of. No costs. 16. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)