Court No. 6 (265719) 13.08.2026 (AD 13) (S. Banerjee) CO 2562 of 2026 Modern Book Agency Private Limited Vs. Anusree Pal & Ors. Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Somnath Gangopadhyay …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 being no. 24 dated June 11, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 322 of 2023. After entering appearance in the eviction suit, the defendant filed applications under Sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(c) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Since there was some delay in filing the aforesaid applications, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was taken out to condone the delay in filing the aforesaid applications. Petitioner also took out an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by contending that the time to comply with the provisions under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 would start to run with 2 effect from the date the deficit Court fees as per the amended valuation of the suit was put in. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit was grossly undervalued for which an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was taken out and the learned trial judge after accepting the contention of the petitioner that the suit is undervalued, directed the opposite-party to correct the valuation and to deposit the deficit Court fees. He further submits that an undervalued suit is an irregular suit and the date of service of summons in such an irregular suit cannot be the starting point of the obligations under Section 7 of the 1997 Act. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code states that a plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court fails to do so or where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, this Court is of the considered view that even if the relief claimed is undervalued or there has been a 3 deficit of Court fees put in by the plaintiff, the same would not automatically result in rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure. On the contrary, the Court is obliged, in the aforesaid cases, to require the plaintiff to correct the valuation within a certain time or to put in the deficit Court fees by fixing certain time limit and only on failure to comply with such directions, the plaint can be rejected. In the case on hand, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code stood rejected by affording an opportunity to the plaintiff/opposite-party to correct the valuation within a certain time and to put in the deficit Court fees by fixing a time limit therefor. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, in his usual fairness, does not dispute the fact that that the direction passed by the learned trial judge for correction of the valuation and for putting in the deficit Court fees was complied with within the time limit fixed by the said order. At this stage it would be relevant to take note of the provisions laid down under Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code empowering the Court in its discretion at any stage to allow any person to put in the deficit Court fees and upon such payment in respect of such fee the same shall have same force 4 and effect as if the fee has been paid in the first instance. To the mind of this Court the suit filed with an incorrect valuation is a curable defect and such defect gets cured with the valuation being corrected and the deficit Court fees being put in. Upon a conjoint reading of Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Code along with Section 149 of the Code, this Court is of the considered view that a suit filed with incorrect valuation cannot have the effect of extending the period of limitation to comply with the obligations under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It is now well-settled that Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act casts an obligation upon the tenant to deposit arrear rent in Court or pay the same to the landlord within the time limit as mentioned in the suit. On a query of the Court Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, in his usual fairness, submits that the arrear rent was not deposited at the time when the aforesaid applications were filed. It is not in dispute that the applications under Sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(c) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 5 Act were filed beyond the stipulated period as fixed under Section 7 of the 1997 Act. It is now judicially settled that the time limit for depositing the admitted arrears of rent under Section 7(1) and the first part of Section 7(2) is mandatory and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not have any manner of application for extending the time limit for fulfilling such obligation by the tenant. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently the applications under Sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(c) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act stands attracted if the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) within the time specified thereunder or within the extended time that may be granted. Section 7(3) also does not contemplate filing of an application. If the fact of non- compliance of the provisions of Section 7(1) or 7(2) of the 1997 Act is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court can exercise its powers under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act irrespective of the fact whether any application has been filed praying for such reliefs by the landlord/plaintiff or not. 6 For all the reasons stated hereinbefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This civil revision application accordingly stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)