D/L- 13 25/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 3183 of 2025 Md. Islam Vs. Tarawati Rao & Ors. Mr. Bhagbat Chowdhuri Mr. Subrata Mukherjee ….for the petitioner Mr. Satyam Mukherjee Ms. Debonwita Biswas ….for the opposite party nos.1 to 4 Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order” but with the consent of the respective parties the main civil revisional application is taken up for final hearing by treating the same as on the day’s list. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order no.23 dated August 1, 2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Court at Serampore, District- Hooghly in Title Suit No.578 of 2023. By the order impugned the applications under Section 7(1) was rejected on the ground that it was not maintainable and the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 also stood rejected. Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the order dated August 7, 2024 in support of his contention that on that date the petitioner filed applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act and also filed the challans for 2 deposit of rent. He submits that the learned trial judge did not pass an order on that date allowing the petitioner to deposit rent. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 4 submits that Section 7(1) contemplates a deposit to be made and not an application to be filed. He submits that the petitioner filed the challans for deposit of rent for the month of May, 2024 only in the month of August, 2024. He, thus, submits that since the rent for the month of May, 2024 was not deposited within the time limit stipulated under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act, the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Section 7(1) of the said Act. He further submits that the petitioner has not complied with the requirements under Section 7(1)(c) of the 1997 Act. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. From the order dated August 7, 2024, this Court finds that the petitioner appeared before the Court by filing a Vakaltnama and on that date he filed two petitions, one under Section 7(1) and other under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act along with challans. It further appears from the said order that the applications along with challans were kept with the record. The petitioner could not have deposited the rent without the learned trial judge allowing the petitioner to deposit the rent for the month as stated in the application under 3 Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. However, it appears from the order dated August 7, 2024, that the defendant tendered challans for the house rent for the month of May, 2024 to August, 2024 on August 7, 2024 but the fact remains that the challans which were filed by the petitioner on May 7, 2024 was not passed by the Officer of the learned Civil Judge on that day for making the deposit. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there is no arrear rent to be deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7(2) for determination of the dispute as to whether any amount is lying in arrears and to allow the petitioner to deposit the arrear amount. Such application has also been rejected by the learned trial judge without assigning any reasons. For all the reasons as aforesaid this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The order dated August 1, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Court at Serampore, District-Hooghly in Title Suit No.578 of 2023 is set aside. The applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act are restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Court at Serampore, District-Hooghly. The learned trial judge has to take into consideration the records of the suit and find out whether the petitioner in fact filed the challans for deposit of rent for the month of May, 2024 on May 7, 2024 and the effect of filing of such challan. The learned trial judge is requested to decide the aforesaid applications under Sections 7(1) and 4 7(2) of the 1997 Act afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. The entire exercise shall be completed by the learned trial judge as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is, however, made clear that all points are left open to be raised by the respective parties at the time of hearing of the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act and the issues raised by the respective parties shall be dealt with by the learned trial judge while passing the order of such applications. Accordingly, CO 3183 of 2025 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.)