18.08.2026 Item No.19 Ct. No. 652 RP CO 3982 of 2025 MD. HOSSAIN ALI & ORS. VS ATAR ALI MOLLA Mr. Saumyen Datta Mr. Kousik Karmakar …..For Petitioners Mr. Narayan Debnath Ms. Bishalaxmi Ghosh Ms. Tanima Debnath Ms. Taniya Chakraborty Mr. Md. Nesab Sarkar Ms. Anisha Haque …..For Opposite Party 1. Parties are represented. 2. An order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Court at Purba Bardhaman dated September 10, 2025 in Title Suit No.421 of 2023 is under challenge in the instant revision. In the same the Court has allowed the applications filed by the present opposite party before it, under Sections 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and directed for payment of arrear rent which stood due and outstanding. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the Court as above. 4. Mr. Datta, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that by violating the mandatory provisions of law, which requires deposit of 2 arrear of rent by the tenant within the period of one month from the date of service of summon upon him/her, the said order has been passed, which is unsustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the summon was served upon the present opposite party on May 7, 2024, whereas the opposite party has deposited arrear of rent on June 11, 2024 i.e. beyond the period of statutory limit of one month. In the meantime, on June 3, 2024, the opposite party appeared before the Court and filed applications under Section 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act but without deposit of any arrear of rent. 5. In such circumstances, according to the petitioners, the order as mentioned above is not sustainable in law and may be set aside. 6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in support of his contention, has relied on a judgement dated September 25, 2025 passed by this Court in the case of Manju Rana vs. Somnath Chandra and Ors. (CO 1177 of 2024). 7. So far as the factual aspects of the case as narrated above regarding service of summon upon the opposite party as well as deposit of arrear of rent by the opposite party, the 3 learned advocate for the opposite party accepts the fact stated by the petitioners, particularly as regards the relevant dates. 8. In such circumstances, this Court finds that in the judgement of Manju Rana (supra), it has been categorically held that on a conjoint reading of all sub-sections of Sections 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act leads to the only inevitable conclusion that the deposit of arrear of rent as contemplated in Section 7(1)(a) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, within the time stipulated therein, is a mandatory provision and cannot be extended by operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 read with Section 40 of the 1997 Act. 9. Thus, the law has been categorically laid down in the said verdict of Court. 10. In the instant case it is on record and is an undisputed fact that the opposite party tenant has deposited outstanding rent beyond a period of one month after receipt of summons. In consideration of the statutory provisions under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the law laid down by the Court in Manju Rana’s case (supra), this Court is therefore inclined to find the 4 impugned order to be not in accordance with law and, thus, is liable to be set aside. 11. For the reasons as discussed above, the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Court in Title Suit No.421 of 2023 dated September 10, 2025 is hereby set aside. The applications filed by the present opposite party before the learned trial Court under Section 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Act stand as dismissed. 12. The revisional application, being CO 3982 of 2025, is allowed on contest. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)