Court No. 6 (265719) 09.09.2026 (AD 4) (S. Banerjee) CO 2531 of 2026 Sri Subrata Bej & Ors. Vs. Sri Dipak Kumar Kundu Mr. Aniruddha Tewari Mr. Amrit Sinha …for the petitioners Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Mr. Kaustav Bhattacharya Ms. Priyanka Jana …for the opposite-party Affidavit of service filed in Court today, is taken on record. This matter was mentioned by Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the opposite party by submitting that a short point of law is involved in this civil revision application. Though this matter is appearing under the heading ‘To be mentioned’, with the consent of the learned advocates of the respective parties, the parties were heard at length on the merits of the civil revision application 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 order no. 7 dated July 22, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. 2 Division) 2nd Court at Arambagh, Hooghly in title Suit No. 177 of 2026. By the order impugned, the application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 stood rejected on the ground that in the plant of the suit the opposite- parties have stated that the defendants/petitioners are trespassers and the suit was not filed on the ground as contemplated under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Heard the learned advocates for the respective partier and perused the materials placed. After going through the plaint this Court finds that in paragraph 5 thereof the plaintiff/opposite- party has stated that after the death of Jagannath Beij the defendants have become trespassers with respect to the premises described in the schedule below since the plaintiff and/or his brothers did not accept the defendants as tenants in respect of the property. That apart, with the death of the mother of the plaintiff, Jagannath Beij ceased to become tenant with respect to the suit property. However, on and from paragraph no. 6 of the plaint, this Court finds that the grounds contemplated under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was cited as the ground for eviction of the petitioners from the suit property. 3 After going through the order impugned, this court is of the considered view that the order impugned was passed without reading the plaint as a whole. It appears to this Court that the learned trial judge was under the impression that in view of the statement made in paragraph no. 5 thereof that eviction has been sought for on the ground that the petitioners are trespassers. However, this Court finds that the grounds under Section 6(1) have also been taken as the ground in the plaint for eviction of the petitioners in respect of the property in question. Upon a reading o the provisions of sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, this Court is of the considered view that an application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is maintainable in case where the suit is instituted on the grounds under Section 6(1) of the 1997 Act. As observed hereinbefore that the plaint also contains grounds as contemplated under Section 6(1) of the 1997 Act, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned only for the reasons that the impugned order was passed without reading the plaint as a whole. For such reason the impugned order is set aside. The application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 stands restored 4 to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 2nd Court at Arambagh, Hooghly. A more or less similar issue fell for consideration before a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bengal Non-Ferrous Metal Industries – Vs.- Smt. Mohini Todi & Ors., reported at (1999)2 Cal LJ 49 wherein the coordinate Bench while dealing with an application under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 held that the question of applicability of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act could be attracted only if a suit is filed on the ground under Section 13(1) of the 1956 Act. Before parting, it is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claims and counterclaims of the respective parties as to whether the instant suit is a simplicitor suit for eviction of a trespasser or a suit filed on the grounds contemplated under Section 6(1) of the 1997 Act and the learned trial judge shall be free to consider such issues at the time of disposal of the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. There is no quarrel that the aforesaid proposition of law shall squarely apply to the provisions of Section 7 of the 1997 Act. However, the applicability of the said proposition of law to the facts of the case on hand is left for the learned trial judge 5 to consider at the time of deciding the application pursuant to this order. Learned trial judge is requested to dispose of the said application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of the end of the month of December, 2026, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. With the above observations and directions this civil revision application stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)