1. Ejectment suit for rent arrears — Application for deposit of rent and determination of rent under Section 7, WBPT Act — Delay in filing — Condonation sought. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1204
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School – Appellant
Versus
Ismat Ahmed And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10649 of 2025 In [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10900 of 2024]
Decided On : 13-08-2025
Advocates appeared:
(Amicus Curiae) : Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Ms. Manu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Bikram Diwavdi, Adv
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR Ms. Shivani Lal, Adv. Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Safdar Azam, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Unmukt Gera, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Mali, Adv. Mr. Deepanshu Rana, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Raidani, Adv. Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Adv. Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv.
(Amicus Curiae) : Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Ms. Manu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Bikram Diwavdi, Adv
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR Ms. Shivani Lal, Adv. Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Safdar Azam, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Unmukt Gera, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Mali, Adv. Mr. Deepanshu Rana, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Raidani, Adv. Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Adv. Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv.
Important Points
The tenant's failure to comply with the mandatory time limits for rent deposit under the WBPT Act results in the loss of defense against eviction, as extensions under the Limitation Act are inapplicable.
Subject
Property Law - Tenancy
Act Referred
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
RAJASTHAN PREMISES CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT: S.13(4)
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT: S.6, S.7
RAJASTHAN PREMISES CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT: S.13(4)
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT: S.6, S.7
Headnote
(A) LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - Section 5 - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1997 - Sections 7(1) and 7(2) - Tenant's application for condonation of delay in filing application under Section 7(1) rejected - Tenant failed to deposit rent within the statutory period and sought extension under Section 5, which is impermissible as it contradicts the mandatory compliance required under the WBPT Act. (Paras 10-36)
(B) Applicability of the Limitation Act vis-a-vis WBPT Act - The Limitation Act applies subject to the specific provisions of the WBPT Act relating to limitation, and extensions cannot expand a statutory period. (Paras 19-20)
(C) Compliance of statutory provisions - The requirement for deposit and application within the stipulated time is mandatory, and failure results in striking down the tenant's defense against eviction. (Paras 22-33)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a tenant, contested the rejection of his application for condonation of delay in filing under the WBPT Act, claiming to have paid excess rent. The Small Causes Court rejected the application, citing noncompliance with statutory time limits leading to eviction.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court supported the dismissal, confirming the Small Causes Court's view that the provisions of the WBPT Act do not allow for delays beyond specified limits without mandatory compliance of rent deposit and application submission.
Issues: Whether the tenant’s applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) were timely and compliant with the WBPT Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the WBPT Act are mandatory, and any delay in following these stipulations cannot be condoned, reaffirming the strict adherence required to the time limits therein.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Applicability of the Limitation Act vis-a-vis WBPT Act - The Limitation Act applies subject to the specific provisions of the WBPT Act relating to limitation, and extensions cannot expand a statutory period. (Paras 19-20)
(C) Compliance of statutory provisions - The requirement for deposit and application within the stipulated time is mandatory, and failure results in striking down the tenant's defense against eviction. (Paras 22-33)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a tenant, contested the rejection of his application for condonation of delay in filing under the WBPT Act, claiming to have paid excess rent. The Small Causes Court rejected the application, citing noncompliance with statutory time limits leading to eviction.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court supported the dismissal, confirming the Small Causes Court's view that the provisions of the WBPT Act do not allow for delays beyond specified limits without mandatory compliance of rent deposit and application submission.
Issues: Whether the tenant’s applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) were timely and compliant with the WBPT Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the WBPT Act are mandatory, and any delay in following these stipulations cannot be condoned, reaffirming the strict adherence required to the time limits therein.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the proviso to Section 7(2) of WBPT Act allows extension of time for initial deposits under Section 7(1) and whether Section 5, Limitation Act applies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. The court analyzed the mandatory nature of shall in Section 7, the meaning of together, and the limited scope of the extension proviso in Section 7(2). (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
4. Compliance with Section 7(1) and 7(2) regarding initial rent deposit and application filing is mandatory; the extension proviso applies only to payments after rent determination. (Para 28 , 29 , 35 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Orders of the Small Causes Court and High Court confirming rejection of condonation of delay application maintained. (Para 36 )
6. Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to time limits specified under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997?
Yes, but only subject to the provisions of the WBPT Act. If the WBPT Act specifies a shorter limitation period for a proceeding, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be used to expand that period. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 35 )
7. Is the requirement to deposit rent or file an application for determination within the statutory period under Section 7 of the WBPT Act mandatory?
Yes. The use of the word shall and the specified consequence of non-compliance—striking out the tenant's defence against eviction under Section 7(3)—renders the initial deposit and application filing mandatory. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 29 )
8. Does the proviso to Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act allow for an extension of time for the initial deposit of rent?
No. The proviso allowing a one-time extension of up to two months applies only to the payment of the amount specified in the court's order after the determination of rent, not to the initial deposit or application. (Para 15 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
9. What is the requirement for a tenant seeking determination of rent under Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act?
The tenant must deposit the amount admitted to be due together with an application for determination of the rent payable within the specified statutory period of one month. (Para 13 , 14 , 17 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenging the order impugned dated 20.03.20241[C.O. No. 2783 of 2023] passed by High Court at Calcutta, confirming the order dated 17.07.20232[Ejectment Suit No. 133 of 2019] of the Small Causes Court, which rejected the application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 filed by appellant–tenant seeking condonation of delay in filing application under Section 7 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (in short ‘WBPT Act’), the present appeal has been filed.
3. The appellant is a tenant in the suit premise being Flat No. 8, First Floor, 44, Elliot Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, and the respondents are the landlord. The relationship of landlord and the tenant is not in dispute. The admitted monthly rent of the suit premise is Rs. 1090/-. The landlord instituted the ejectment suit on 11.06.2019 on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona-fide need and sub-letting. On issuance of notice, summons were served upon tenant on 29.09.2022. From the next day and date, i.e., 30.09.2022 till 27.10.2022, the Courts were closed because of Durga Puja vacation in Kolkata. Thereafter, on 14.11.2022, the tenant filed the applications under Sections 7 (1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act along with application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT with the prayer to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the application under Section 7 (1) of the WBPT Act.
4. In the application filed under Section 7 (1) of the WBPT Act, prayer was made to deposit the ‘current rent’ for the month of November 2022 at the rate of Rs. 1090/- per month and to pass such order as the Court may deem fit. Similarly, application under Section 7 (2) of the WBPT Act, was filed seeking determination of default period, if any, and to refund the excess amount paid and to pass such order as may deem fit.
5. Learned Small Causes Court by the impugned order rejected the application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , inter-alia, observing that the period to file an application as specified under Section 7 (1) of the WBPT Act is thirty days, which cannot be extended by aid of Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT . Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred the revision before the High Court, which was dismissed maintaining the order of the learned Small Causes Court with certain observations qua applicability of Sections 7 (1) and (2) of the WBPT Act. Hence, this appeal.
6. Mr. Uday Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant– tenant has strenuously urged that the tenant was lawfully inducted by the respondents and has regularly paid the rent by cheque to the son-in-law of the landlord (respondent no. 1), details of which have been specified in the application preferred under Section 7 (1) and 7(2) of WBPT Act. It is urged that as per the details of the cheque amount, a total sum of Rs. 2,80,500/- has been paid and as per the averments made in the plaint, the rent due is from March 2017, which comes to sixty eight months till date of filing of applications under Section 7 (1) and 7(2). As such the payment made is more than the rent amount due, therefore, refund of the said amount was sought for. It is urged that when amount of rent is paid in excess, the applications under Section 7 (1) and (2) of WBPT Act ought to be considered on merits along with the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT , 1963 by the tenant.
7. Learned senior counsel extensively referring Sections 7 (1), 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the WBPT Act, contended that proviso appended to Section 7 (2) would apply to Section 7 (1) also, therefore, if there is any delay in filing of the application under Section 7 (1) and (2), the same may be condoned at least once up to two months. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Debasish Paul and Another vs. Amal Boral , (2024) 2 SCC 169, in particular paragraph 17, and also urged that judgment in Bijay Kumar Singh and Others vs. A
