Sl.18 25.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3325 of 2026 Shanti Devi Sharma & Ors. -versus- Bharat Kumar Shah Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sadhukhan Ms. Moumita Basak ..for the petitioners Mr. Anirban Pal ..for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order being no.42 dated 27th August, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in charge of 2nd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 136 of 2019. By the order impugned the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act stood rejected and consequently the defence of the petitioners against delivery of possession was struck of. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that summons were not served upon the petitioners and upon obtaining the information slip the petitioners came to know that a suit has been filed against the petitioners and the next date was fixed on 29th August, 2019. He submits that on 29th August, 2019 the 2 petitioners entered appearance in the suit and filed the application one under Section 7(1) and another application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act and pursuant to an order passed by the learned trial judge on 29th August, 2019 permitting the petitioners to deposit the entire arrears of rent within thirty days also deposited the arrear rent within the said period of thirty days as per the direction passed by the learned trial judge. He thus submits that the learned trial judge could not have dismissed the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and the defence of the petitioner also could not have been struck out. The learned advocate for the opposite party submits that the petitioners came to know of the institution of the ejectment suit upon receipt of the information slip on 6th August, 2019 and the arrear rent was deposited well beyond the stipulated time frame of thirty days as per the provisions of Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) of the 1997 Act. He thus submits that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act and striking out the defence against delivery of possession. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. It is not in dispute that the petitioners received the information of institution of the suit from the concerned department of the court on 6th August, 2019. Record reveals that pursuant to the direction passed by the 3 learned trial judge by an order dated 29th August, 2019 the copy of the plaint was served upon the petitioner on 29th August, 2019 as is reflected from the order dated 29th August, 2019. The question that arises for consideration is whether the time limit prescribed under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act would start to run from the date of receipt of the information from the concerned department of the learned trial judge. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 which is extracted hereinafter. “S. 7. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction. - (1) (a) On a '[suit] being instituted by the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in section 6, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section, pay to the landlord or deposit with 2[the Civil Judge] all arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and up to the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum. (b) Such payment or deposit shall be made within one month of the service of summons on the tenant or, where he appears in the [suit] without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his appearance. (c) The tenant shall thereafter continue to pay to 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.” After going through the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the 1997 Act this Court holds that the payment of deposit under Section 7(1) shall have to be made within one month of the service of summons on the tenant or 4 where he appears in the suit without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his appearance. The learned trial judge has not returned any finding as to the date of service of summons upon the petitioner. On the contrary the copy of the plaint appears to have been served upon the petitioners on 29th August, 2019. Thus the petitioner entered appearance without service of summons upon him. Thus, the second limb of Section 7(1)(b) shall come into play. The time limit prescribed under Section 7(1)(b) of the 1997 Act, in the case on hand, shall start to run from the date of appearance of the defendant in the said suit and not from the date of receipt of the information slip. The petitioners entered appearance in the said suit on 29th August, 2019 and filed the application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act on that date itself and the learned trial judge also passed an order on 29th August, 2019 directing the petitioners to deposit admitted arrear of rent together with interest by thirty days from the date of the said order. It is not in dispute that the said amount was deposited on 6th September, 2019 i.e. well within the period of one month from the date of appearance of the petitioners in the said suit. The learned trial judge failed to interpret the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the 1997 Act correctly. 5 For such reason, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 27th August, 2026 is set aside. The application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act stands restored to the file of the learned trial judge and the learned trial judge is requested to decide the said application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in the light of the observations made hereinbefore as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the receipt of the server copy of this order. With the above observations, C.O. 3325 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.)