IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that compliance with mandatory timelines in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is essential for tenants to avoid eviction due to non-payment of rent.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated January 4, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Additional Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Ejectment Suit NO.117 of 2021.

2. After 16 months from receipt of summons, applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was filed by the tenant. The tenant had received summons on August 20, 2021, but did not take any steps allegedly, due to the laches of the learned advocate. The suit was fixed ex parte. The learned trial judge vacated the order by which the suit had been fixed for ex parte hearing, on the prayer of the tenant. Thereafter, the tenant/defendant filed the above applications.

3. The landlord filed an application seeking dismissal of the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act, on the ground that the said application had not been filed within one month from receipt of summons and no admitted arrears had been deposited along with 10% interest. The dismissal was sought for on the strength of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Bijay Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Amit Kumar Chamaria & Anr. reported in 2020 (1) Indian Civil Cases 664 (SC).

4. The learned court was of the view that the applications were maintainable. The ground for delayed filing of the application was that steps had not been taken by the Advocate. The delay had been condoned when the order fixing the suit for ex parte hearing, had been recalled.

5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioners/landlords submits the learned court may have vacated the order by which the suit was proceeding ex parte, but that would not entitle the tenant to file belated applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act, without complying with the mandate of the Apex Court.

6. Section 7(1) of the Act had an inbuilt provision of time within which the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act were required to be filed, along the admitted arrears and 10% interest thereon. Such period of limitation was mandatory. Non-compliance of the said provision would result in striking off the defence of the tenant.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable in cases when the tenant did not file the applications and did not deposit the admitted arrears with 10% interest within one month from receipt of summons or within one month from date of appearance and the tenants’ protection under the said section from delivery of possession on any of the grounds under Section 6 of the said Act, would not be available.

8. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are quoted below:-

“19. Sub section (1) of Section 7 of the Act relieves the tenant from the ejectment on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent if he pays to the landlord or deposits it with the Civil Judge all arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and up to the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum. Such payment or deposit shall be made within one month of the service of summons on the tenant or, where he appears in the suit without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his appearance.

20. Therefore, sub section (1) deals with the payment of arrears of rent when there is no dispute about the rate of rent or the period of arrears of rent. Sub section (2) of the Act comes into play if there is dispute as to the amount of rent including the period of arrears payable by the tenant. In that situation, the tenant is obliged to apply within time as specified in sub section (1) that is within one month of the receipt of summons or within one month of appearance before the court to deposit with the Civil Judge the amount admitted by him to be due. The tenant is also required to file an application for determinati