Sl.33 30.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3194 of 2026 Rajarshi Banerjee & Anr. -versus- Shyamoli Mandal Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Ms. Susmita Chatterjee Ms. Dipanwita Ganguly Mr. Kaustav Bhattacharjee ..for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order dated 9th February, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 7th Court at Alipore in Ejectment Suit No. 22 of 2023. By the order impugned the application under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act stood rejected. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that immediately upon receipt of the summons the petitioners entered appearance in the said suit on 11th March, 2025 and filed the application under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act on that very date. He submits that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the application. He submits that since the application was filed within the stipulated time limit the learned trial judge ought not to have rejected the said application instead of deciding the same on merits. He further submits that the petitioner entered appearance 2 on a date prior to the date fixed by the learned trial judge for appearance. The learned trial judge in the impugned order has specifically recorded that the summons was served upon the defendants on 27th January, 2025. The application under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act are silent with regard to the date of receipt of summons by the defendants. That apart, Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act does not contemplate filing of an application but the tenant is under a statutory obligation to deposit the admitted arrears of rent within the time limit mentioned in Section 7(1)(b) of the 1997 Act and continue to deposit rent in the manner as stipulated in Section 7(1)(c ) of the 1997 Act. Even if the contention of the petitioners is to be taken at face value that the petitioners filed the application on the date of appearance but this Court fails to understand as to why the petitioners did not deposit the admitted arrears within the stipulated time frame. The learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. At this stage Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that even after the defence of the petitioners has been struck out the petitioners have a right to contest the suit. 3 It will be open to the petitioners to take appropriate steps before the learned trial judge in accordance with law. With the above observations, C.O. 3194 of 2026 stands disposed of. 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.)