The essential preconditions for maintainability of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, are: (i) raising a dispute with regard to the rate of rent; (ii) depositing the admitted amount of arrear rent along with statutory interest; and (iii) making a prayer for determination of the rent payable.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Sarkar, J.) :

1. The revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated February 28, 2023, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th court at Serampore in Title Suit No.467 of 2022.

2. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4, instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession on the ground of reasonable requirement and default. The petitioners were the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in the suit. The petitioners contested the suit by filing their written statement and denied the allegations made therein. The petitioners prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. The petitioners filed an application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), contending, inter alia, that they had received the summons on September 2022 and permission be given to deposit the monthly rent of Rs. 1700 per month, from the month of September 2022.

4. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application under Section 7(2) of the said Act. They contended that summons were served on September 9, 2022 and an application under Section 7(1) of the said Act had been filed claiming to be monthly tenants, at a monthly rental of Rs.1700/-per month, in respect of the shop room as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. That the plaintiffs/opposite parties No.1 to 4 had not accept rent from the month of May 2021. The petitioners prayed for an order allowing delayed deposit of arrear of rents, in instalments.

5. The said application under Section 7(2) of the said Act was rejected by the learned court below. This revisional application arises out of the order of rejection. The learned court below observed that in order to attract the provisions of Section 7(2) of the said Act, three essential elements were required to be fulfilled. First, there must be a dispute with regard to the amount of rent payable by the tenant. Secondly, the admitted amount of arrear rent along with statutory interest should be deposited within the time prescribed by law and thirdly the court must be approached to determine such dispute with regard to the rate of rent.

6. The learned court held that without raising any dispute with regard to the rate of rent, without depositing the admitted arrear rent and without making any prayer for determination of the rent payable, an application under Section 7(2) of the said Act was not maintainable. The defendants/petitioners had not raised any dispute either with regard to the rate of rent or with regard to the arrear of rent payable. They had only prayed for an order to deposit the arrear rent in instalments, i.e., rent from May 2021.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that proviso to Section 7(2) of the said Act permitted the learned court to extend the time to deposit rent in case of default of payment, by a period of two months. The learned court below ought to have allowed the petitioner to pay the arrear rent in instalments, by invoking the proviso to Section 7(2) of the said Act.

8. According to the learned advocate for the petitioners, as the rate of rent was not in dispute in this case, the pre-conditions of depositing the admitted arrear rent with statutory rate of interest, raising a dispute with regard to arrear rent payable, and consequently calling upon the court to decide such dispute, were not required to be fulfilled. It was submitted that in this case, the learned court ought to have allowed the prayer for deposit of the arrear rent from the month of May 2021, by allowing instalments.

9. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the opposite parties/plaintiffs denied such contentions and submitted that in the decision of Arun Prakash Saha vs Asit Baran De and Ors. reported in 2017(2) CHN (Cal) 123, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court held that when the defendant did not deposit the admitted arrear rent together with the statutory rate of interest, the question of determination of arrear rent by the Court, would not arise. That t