A.17 08.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3053 of 2025 Smt. Mongola Bag -versus- Subhendu Dutt Ms. Labanyasree Sinha Mr. Prosun Mondal ..for the petitioner Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra Mr. Saptarshi Dutt ..for the opposite party Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order” but with the consent of the learned advocates for 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 bearing no. 17 dated 16th May, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 133 of 2023. By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioner praying for extension of time to deposit the monthly rent for the month of December, 2024 stood rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner complied with the provisions of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act but due to the fault of the learned advocate only the rent for the 2 month of December, 2024 could not be deposited within the stipulated time limit. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for extension of the time limit to deposit the rent for the month of December, 2024. Dr. Patra, learned advocate appears for the opposite party. He submits that the time limit fixed under Section 7(1) and Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is mandatory. He submits that it is now well settled that such time limit cannot be extended. In support of such contention Dr. Patra places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School Vs. Ismat Ahmed & Ors. reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1696. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. It is not in dispute that the rent for the month of December, 2024 was not deposited within the time limit fixed in the statute. Thus there has been non compliance of the provisions of Section 7(1)(c ) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 as rightly observed by the learned trial judge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School (supra) held that the compliance as required to be done by the tenant in Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and the first part of Section 7(2) regarding deposit of rent and filing of an application 3 within the same time is mandatory. In default, they cannot avail the benefit of the proviso of sub-section (2) which only relates to the payment of determined amount of rent and whereby the Civil Judge may exercise the discretion to grant extension of time. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that since the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act is pending, the learned trial judge ought to have extended the time to deposit the rent for the month of December, 2024. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School (supra) that the benefit of proviso to sub-section (2) only relates to payment of determined amount of rent and in that case only the Civil Judge may exercise the discretion to grant extension of time, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the delay in depositing the rent for the month of December, 2024 can be condoned as the application under Section 7(2) is pending. It is elementary that even during the pendency of the application under Section 7(2), a tenant is required to deposit rent month by month at the rate last paid according to him in terms of Section 7(1)(c ). The Co-ordinate Bench in C.O. 776 of 2025 (order passed on 19th December, 2025) in the case of Surya 4 Publishers, Prop. Nemai Gorai Vs. Sri Subir Paul held that before determination under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, a tenant is required to deposit the monthly rent at the rate last paid according to him and any non compliance of Section 7(1)(c ) of the 1997 Act cannot be cured by importing the proviso to Section 7(2). The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Lal Bahadur Singh Vs. Amit Kumar Chamaria delivered on 31.01.2018 in C.O. 252 of 2018 reported at 2018 (2) CHN (Cal) 689 relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as in the said decision, the application under Section 7(2) was disposed of without deciding the dispute raised in that application as to the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. To the mind of this Court the learned trial judge correctly applied the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the said issue and the order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, C.O. 3053 of 2025 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)