Item- 2. sg 11-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2925 of 2026 M/s. Shibpur Pure Oil Mills Versus Arnab Mukherjee & Anr. Mr. Aurin Chakraborty Mr. Kamal Kr. Chattopadhyay Ms. Rimi Chatterjee …for the petitioner Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.P. Mukhopadhyay …for the opposite parties 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. 216 dated 16th June, 2026 passed by the learned Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah, in Title Suit No. 46 of 2010. By the order impugned, the application filed by the petitioner dated 21st February, 2025 praying for passing the challan alleged to have been tendered by the petitioner to enable the petitioner to deposit the rents, stood rejected and consequently, the defence against delivery of possession was struck out under Section 7(3)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a defaulter in payment of any rent. He submits that the petitioner was in a habit of payment of rents clubbing more than one month rent in advance. He submits that the petitioner tendered challans for depositing the rents for the month of Baishak to Ashwin 1430 B.S. on 2nd May, 2023 i.e. on 18th Baisakh, 1430 B.S. for payment of rent in advance and nor for any period in default. He submits that unless the challans tendered by a party is passed by the office of the learned Judge, the deposit 2 of rent cannot be made. He further submits that in spite of the challans being tendered well before the prescribed time limit for depositing the rents for the months of Baishakh 1430 to Ashwin 1430 B.S, the challans were not passed by the office learned Trial Judge. He submits that immediately after such defect was noticed, the petitioner without any further delay filed an application praying for permission to deposit the rents on the basis of the challans already tendered being passed upon the office of the learned trial judge. He submits that the delay in depositing the rents for the said months are not for the fault of the petitioner but due to fault of the office of the learned trial judge and for which the litigant should not be penalized. In support of such contention Mr. Chakraborty places reliance upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench dated 28th June, 2024 passed in CO 1982 of 2022 in the case of Tapan Kumar Santra vs. Tarak Nath Paul. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the proposition of law laid down in the said decision is that the litigant should not be penalized for the acts of the advocates or their clerks. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner was not at all diligent in complying with the provision of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. He submits that the petitioner has admitted the default for the month of Baisakh 1430 B.S. and for such reason, the impugned order should not be interpreted with by this Court. In reply Mr. Chakraborty submits that the learned trial judge did not proceed on the basis of the statements made by the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the application but 3 placed reliance upon a decision which does not exist. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. The petitioner claims to have tendered the challans for depositing the rents for the months of Baisakh 1430 BS to Ashwin 1430 BS before the court on 2nd May, 2023. The petitioner alleges that in spite of depositing the challans before the court well within the stipulated time period, the same was not passed and handed over to the petitioner to enable him to comply with the requirements under section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Even if such allegation of the petitioner of tendering the challans on 2nd May, 2023 is taken at its face value, this Court finds that no acceptable explanation has been given in the application dated 21st February, 2025 as to why the petitioner after tendering the challans before the court for depositing the rents for the months of Baisakh 1430 to Ashwin 1430 BS on 2nd May, 2023, waited till 21st February, 2025 for filing of the application. Mr. Chakraborty learned advocate appearing for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court that any reasons have been stated in the said application in support of such delayed approach before the leaned trial judge praying for passing of the challans which is alleged to have been tendered to enable the petitioner to deposit the rent for the aforesaid period. That apart, Mr. Banerjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite parties is right in pointing out that it has specifically admitted in paragraph 2 of the said application that the challans for the month of Kartick 4 1430 and Agrahayan 1430 BS were allegedly deposited before the court on 24th Pous, 1430 BS corresponding to 10th January, 2024 i.e. beyond the stipulated time period. The petitioner was obliged to deposit the rent for the month of Kartick 1430 BS within 15th of Agrahayan 1430 BS and for Agrahayan 1430 BS within 15th of Pous 1430 BS. In view of the statement made in paragraph 2 of the said application, the petitioner admittedly tendered the challans before the court for the months of Kartick 1430 BS and Agrahayan 1430 BS beyond the stipulated time period. Section 7(1)(c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 states that the tenant shall thereafter continue to pay the landlord or deposit with the Civil Judge month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. Thus, the petitioner was obliged to deposit the rent for the month of Kartick 1430 within 15th Agrahayan and for the month of Agrahayan 1430 BS within 15th day of Pous 1430 BS. Thus, there has been an clear admission of non-compliance of the provision of section 7(1)(c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed & Ors., reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1696, held that if there is non-compliance of section 7(1)(c) of the 1997 Act, the defence against delivery of possession is liable to be struck out under section 7(3) of the 1997 Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the time limit has been prescribed to do some act, it cannot be extended to the aid of the proviso to sub-section 2 of section 7. As such, if there a compliance as 5 required to be done by the tenant under section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and first part of section 7(2) regarding the payment of rent and filing an application within same time, the same is mandatory. In default, the tenant cannot avail of the benefit of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 7 which only relates to the payment of the determined amount of rent and whereby the Civil Judge may exercise the discretion to grant extension to time. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not prayed for extension of time for payment of an amount in terms of an adjudication made under section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. Thus, the benefit of the proviso to section 7(2) of 1997 Act cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. The decision of coordinate Bench in Tapan Kumar Santra (supra) runs counter to the proposition of the law laid down by the several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School. For such reason, the said decision cannot be said to be binding precedent upon this Court. It is now well-settled that a revisional Court can supplement the reasons if the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the leaned trial judge is correct. This Court has already held that the learned trial judge was right in not allowing the application dated 21st February, 2025. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is not interfered with by this Court. This civil revisional application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if 6 applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)