01.09.2026 Ct. No.652 D/L.24 (NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) C.O. 4189 of 2025 East India Trading Co. Vs. Mehta Suraya Private Limited Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Mr. Debjit Dutta …for the Petitioner Mr. Subhasish Sengupta, Mr. S.Mohan Rakshit …for the Opposite Party 1. The defendant/tenant/petitioner, whose defence has been struck off in the suit, due to operation of Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, had filed before the trial Court, his application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking appointment of the local inspection commissioner. The said application of the petitioner/defendant has been turned down and rejected by the learned Court vide order dated August 7, 2025 in Ejectment Suit No. 347 of 2019. The said order dated August 7, 2025, is under challenge in the instant revision. 2. The petitioner’s contention, inter alia, is that, in order to come to a just and proper decision 2 in the suit, the Court is required to take into consideration all attending facts and circumstances and do ground reality check, before passing its judgment. It is therefore, said to be necessary, that the prayer as above of the defendant/petitioner ought to have been allowed by the Court, in so far as on the basis of the Commissioner’s report, the Court could have come to know the ground reality and found its judgment in the suit, on the same. 3. The petitioner’s contentions have been vehemently objected to on behalf of the opposite party/landlord/plaintiff of the suit. The plaintiff’s contention, inter alia, is that a defendant, whose defends has already been struck down by the Courts, including the Apex Court (vide order dated May 06, 2024), shall not have any further opportunity as per law, to put forth any evidence in his support. That, the only scope for the defendant in such a situation is to demolish the plaintiff’s case and nothing else. 4. The opposite party submits that a similar application of him under Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, has been allowed by the Trial court. 3 5. Hence, it appears that the report of the Commissioner is already before the Court. It further appears that in the attending circumstances as discussed above, excepting demolishing the case of the plaintiff/opposite party, the defendant/petitioner shall have no further scope to collect or pursue evidence in the suit, when his defence has been struck down due to operation of Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 6. When a tenant's defence against delivery of possession is struck off under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act , 1997 due to failure to deposit arrears or monthly rent, they lose the right to present their own active defence, submit independent evidence, or examine their own witnesses. He only retains rights to resist the eviction suit during the trial and can also explore immediate appellate remedies. The Supreme Court of India in Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo reported in (1988) 4 SCC 619 has held that the tenant can participate in the trial through "passive" means like cross examine the landlord’s witness, argue demurrer and legal points, submit written argument etc. 4 7. In such circumstances in the prayer on part of the present opposite party/defendant before the Court particularly that to seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner, for making inspection of the premises and filing report thereon, is untenable in the eye of law. 8. The Court sees that the impugned order of the learned Trial Court dated August 7, 2025 in Ejectment Suit No. 347 of 2019 is a very well-written order, appropriately dealing with the legal and factual aspects of the case. Sitting in revisional jurisdiction, therefore, this Court need not interfere into the same, which is far opposite to an order suffering from jurisdictional or legal error. Hence the instant revision should fail. 9. It is, therefore, ordered that the revision application being C.O. 4189 of 2025 is dismissed. The impugned order dated August 7, 2025 in Ejectment Suit No. 347 of 2019, before the Trial Court, is upheld. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)