Court No. 6 (265719) 29.09.2026 (AD 58) (S. Banerjee) CO 3425 of 2026 Mr. Some Nath Bose @ Basu Vs. Smt. Sibani Mitra Mr. Tapan Kumar Mitra … for the petitioner Mr. Shubham Gupta Mr. Anirban Ghosh Mr. Nadeem Khan Mr. Rounak Shaw Mr. Rajsekhar Bal Bakshi … for the opposite-party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against order no. 15 dated July 2, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 164 of 2024. By the order impugned the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 stood rejected and consequently the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession was struck out under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. He further submits that since a dispute has been raised by the petitioner as to the existence of 2 landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the defence of the petitioner could not have been struck out. Heard the learned advocates for the opposite- party on such submission. This Court finds that the petitioner filed an application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. In paragraph 3 of the said application it has been specifically stated that the defendant Mr. Somnath Bose @ Basu had been paying rent to Amit Mitra, i.e., the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff upto June, 2022 i.e., till his death but he did not issue rent bills. Thus, it appears that the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner as to the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, is not a bona fide dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code specifically admitting therein that the current rents from the month of March, 2025 onwards could not be deposited. In view of the statements made in the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code that current rent could not be deposited on and from March, 2025, the learned trial judge was right in 3 holding that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Section 7(1)(c) of the 1997 Act. In view of non-compliance of Section 7(1)(c) of the 1997 Act, the learned trial judge was right in striking out the defence of the petitioner under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act. This Court does find any reason to interfere with such order. Accordingly, this civil revisional application stands dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)