IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limits for rent deposit under the WBPT Act 1997 are mandatory and cannot be extended beyond the specified period, and substantial compliance cannot confer the benefit of protection against eviction.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No. 141 dated 11th April, 2023 passed by the learned Judge 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit no. 494 of 2010.

2. By the order impugned, the application of the defendant/opposite party herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed thereby permitting the defendant to deposit the balance amount of rent for the disputed period. Consequently the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 (for short “the WBPT ACT 1997”) stood rejected.

3. Landlord/petitioner herein filed a suit for eviction inter-alia on the ground of default in payment of rent since June 2000. After appearance, the tenant/opposite party filed an application under Section 7(1) of the WBPT Act 1997 which was disposed of by directing the tenant/opposite party to deposit current rent month by month. On an application filed under Section 7(2) of WBPT Act, 1997, the learned trial Judge, by an order being no. 67 dated 20.01.2016, directed the defendant to deposit in Court the arrears of rent together with interest in favour of the plaintiff within one month. The defendant was further directed to deposit an amount equivalent to monthly rent in favour of the plaintiff month by month as per the provision of Section 7(1) of the said Act.

4. The aforesaid order dated 20.01.2016 was challenged by the tenant in CO 593 of 2016 and a co-ordinate bench, by an order dated 07.03.2016, refused to interfere with the order dated 20.01.2016, but was pleased to extend the time to deposit the rent in terms of the aforesaid order by five weeks from the date of the order dated 07.03.2016.

5. The tenant claims that in the month of March, 2021 it was detected that due to mistake of the registered clerk, rent from the month of June 2016 till February, 2021 was deposited at the rate of Rs. 942/- instead of Rs. 972/-. The tenant/opposite party filed an application under Section 151 of the Code praying for an opportunity to deposit the differential amount for the period from June 2016 to February 2021.

6. Landlord/petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act, 1997 for striking out the defence of the tenant against delivery of possession as he has flouted the order of the Hon’ble High Court.

7. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge permitted the tenant to deposit the balance amount of rent for the disputed period upon holding that the defendant had no intentional laches on its part and also rejected the application under Section 7(3).

8. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court.

9. Mr. Sourodipta Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that on the prayer of the tenant/defendant, this Hon’ble Court, in an earlier civil revision application, extended the time to deposit the arrears of rent as was directed by the learned trial judge while disposing of the application under Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997. He further contended that the learned trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction by permitting the tenant to deposit the balance amount of rent for the disputed period as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as by this Hon’ble Court that further extension of time is not permissible. In support of such contention, Mr. Banerjee placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Singh and Others vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 660 and Debasish Paul and Another vs. Amal Boral, (2024) 2 SCC 169. For the same proposition, he also placed reliance upon the decisions of the co-ordinate benches in the case of Kabita Biswas and Others vs. Sadhan Dasgupta, 2024 SCC Online Cal. 1456 and an unreported decision in CO No. 606 of 2018 in the case of Sri Saurav Das vs. Sri Kartick Dutta and Others Judgment