A court must determine the landlord–tenant relationship before striking out the defence under Section 7(3).

The opposite parties instituted Ejectment Suit No. 145 of 2024 before the Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, seeking eviction under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (“1997 Act”), alleging that the petitioner was in default of rent from October 2023.

The petitioner entered appearance and filed a written statement but did not file applications under Sections 7(1) or 7(2) of the 1997 Act.

The opposite parties thereafter applied under Section 7(3), contending that the petitioner had failed to comply with Section 7.

In opposition, the petitioner disputed the landlord–tenant relationship, asserting that the erstwhile owner had agreed to sell the occupied premises to the tenants and had represented that no rent or occupational charges were payable pending completion of the sale.

The Trial Court allowed the Section 7(3) application and struck out the petitioner’s defence against delivery of possession solely for non-compliance with Section 7.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Sections 7(1), 7(2), and 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, observing that these provisions refer to the obligations of a “tenant,” and that the consequence under Section 7(3) follows upon a tenant’s failure to comply with Sections 7(1) or 7(2).

Relying on the Division Bench decision in Synthetic Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. v. Smt. Manjulika Bhaduri & Ors., (1998) 1 CHN 387, and the subsequent decisions in Baidyanath Kundu v. Sm. Jyotshna Rani Karmakar, AIR 1972 Cal 443; Nipendra Nath Chakraborty v. Brojendra Gopal Sen, AIR 1980 Cal 15; Calcutta Bonemills & Fertilisers (P) Ltd. v. Das Organochem (P) Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 4147; and Manik Lal Sett v. Smt. Hira Basu @ Surali Basu & Ors., (2008) 2 CLJ 675, the Court held that a defendant disputing the very existence of the landlord–tenant relationship is not obliged to invoke Section 7(2), but the Court must determine that dispute before striking out the defence.

The Court also followed the Division Bench ruling in Syed Khawaja Moin v. Md. Safi Alam, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 7031, which held that this principle continues to apply under the 1997 Act because Section 7 uses the expression “tenant,” not “defendant.”

The petitioner’s written objection, read as a whole, contained a specific and substantive denial of the landlord–tenant relationship, rather than merely a dispute regarding the quantum of rent or arrears.

Under the governing authorities, such a plea could be raised even without an application under Section 7(2), since the statutory obligations under Section 7 attach to a “tenant” and not automatically to every defendant in an eviction suit.

If the petitioner’s contention were ultimately upheld, the statutory consequence of striking out the defence under Section 7(3) would not arise.

The Trial Court, however, considered only the alleged non-compliance with Sections 7(1) and 7(2) and failed to adjudicate the foundational dispute regarding the parties’ legal relationship.

This amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction properly.

The impugned order dated 9 February 2026 was set aside, and C.O. 1504 of 2026 was allowed.

The Section 7(3) application was restored to the Trial Court, which was directed to decide the petitioner’s objection after hearing both parties and without unnecessary adjournments.

The High Court expressly left the merits of the petitioner’s claim open for determination by the Trial Court.