Sl.15 17.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3219 of 2026 Nandita Chatterjee -versus- Ajoy Rajak Mr. Samim Ahammed Mr. Dutyman Banerjee Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya Ms. Reshma Khatun ..for the petitioner Mr. Supratick Sanyal Ms. Arkarupa Roy ..for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against several orders passed on the applications under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and the last of which was passed on 18th August, 2026 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 13 of 2021. By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioner challenging the maintainability of the applications under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act stood rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of khas possession and in such a suit the applications under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) 2 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are not maintainable. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that in the said suit the opposite parties filed a written statement thereby setting up a counter claim praying for declaration of tenancy right. He submits that since the opposite party claims to be a monthly tenant governed under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 an application at the instance of the opposite party is maintainable in the eye of law. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. The issue as to whether an application under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is maintainable in a suit not filed for eviction on any of the grounds under Section 6(1) of the 1997 Act is no longer res integra. A more or less identical issue fell for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bengal Non Ferrous Metal Industries Vs. Smt. Mohini Todi reported at (1992) 2 CLJ 49 wherein an issue cropped up as to whether an application under Section 17(1) and Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is maintainable in a suit filed under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The co- ordinate Bench in the said decision held that in a suit filed under the Transfer of Property Act, the provisions of 3 Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 cannot come into play. The aforesaid proposition of law shall squarely apply to the case on hand. Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act deals with benefit of protection available to a tenant against eviction. Section 7(1)(a) starts with the expression “on a suit being instituted by the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in Section 6”. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 starts with the expression “if in any suit referred to in sub-section (1)”. Upon a conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act it is crystal clear that the object behind incorporation of Section 7 is to extend benefit of protection against eviction to a tenant upon fulfillment of certain conditions as specifically stated in the said provision. On a bare reading of the said provision this Court is of the considered view that the provisions of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act can come into play only on a suit being instituted by the landlord for eviction on any of the ground referred to in Section 6 in order to extend the benefit of protection against eviction under the said Act. After going through the plaint of the instant suit this Court finds that the petitioner claims to have acquired title in respect of the suit property by virtue of a deed of conveyance and it is the specific case made out in 4 the plaint that the sole tenant left the suit property long ago and is unauthorisedly and illegally occupying one room on the first floor of the suit premises without any lawful right and authority to occupy. On such foundational facts the petitioner prayed for declaration of her title and for recovery of khas possession in respect of “B” schedule property. Upon reading of the plaint it is evident that the said suit has not been filed for eviction on any of the grounds contained under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. In view thereof, this Court holds that the provisions of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act cannot come into play in the instant case. The learned trial judge without appreciating the provisions of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the law settled by this Court as to the applicability of such provisions to a suit filed other than a suit under Section 6 of the 1997 Act rejected the application challenging the maintainability of the said application. This Court finds that a considerable time has been spent by the learned trial judge on the hearing of the applications under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 in a simplicitier suit for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession. 5 For all the reasons as aforesaid, all the orders passed on applications under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act stands set aside. The learned trial judge is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of Title Suit No. 13 of 2021 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. With the above observations, C.O. 3219 of 2026 stands allowed. 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.)