Mandatory compliance with rent deposit provisions under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is essential; failure to comply results in striking off the defence.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated January 14, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 51 of 2024.

2. The petitioner is the tenant. He was contesting the eviction suit. The suit was filed under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7(1) of the said Act, which was allowed. Consequent upon the court allowing the said application, deposits were made. However, there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 7(1)(c) of the said Act. On account of illness, the petitioner could not deposit the rent for the month of October 2024. The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking extension of time to deposit the rent for October 2024.

3. The application under Section 7(2) of the said Act seeking determination of the quantum of arrears was pending before the learned court. The application for condonation of delay to deposit the rent for October 2024 was filed on December 5, 2024. The same was dismissed. The application under Section 7(2) was held to be infructuous and the defence was struck off. The petitioner did not deposit the current rent even after October 2024, till date.

4. The petitioner contends to have been suffering from illness and he was unable to deposit the money. The application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to deposit the monthly rent of October 2024, upon condonation of the delay was rejected by the learned trial Judge, inter alia, holding that the proviso to Section 7(2) would not come to the aid of the petitioner. The provisions of Section 7(1)(c) was mandatory in nature and extension of time to deposit the current monthly rent, beyond the power and jurisdiction of the said court.

5. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the proviso to Section 7(2) should be made applicable in case of default in deposit of current rent. One extension can be granted by the court and such extension shall not be beyond two months. The application was filed within one month of the default. He submits that the decision of Bijay Kumar Singh & Ors. versus Amit Kumar Chamariya & Anr. reported in (2019) 10 SCC 660, dealt with the mandatory nature of Section 7(1) with regard to the deposit of admitted rents and not with regard to the deposit of current rent, month by month, every month within the 15^th of the succeeding month. The provision of Section 7(1)(c) of the said Act was never an issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

6. It is further contended that, until the arrear rent payable was determined on the basis of the application under Section 7(2), non-compliance of Section 7(1)(c) cannot lead to striking off the defence of the petitioner. Section 7(3) of the said Act also provides that, if the tenant fails to deposit the amount referred to under Sub- Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) within the time specified therein or within the extended time as may be granted by the court, the defence against delivery of possession shall be struck off. Interpreting this section, Mr. Banerjee submits that defence cannot be struck off if payment is made within the extended time. Thus, the law not only permits extension of time by the court to deposit the rent which was not paid, but also gives an opportunity to the tenant to seek an extension to deposit the unpaid monthly rent. If such payment is made, the defence cannot be struck off.

7. In this case, the petitioner approached the court for extension of the period for deposit of the rent for October 2024. It is submitted that the learned court failed to appreciate the law and erroneously rejected the application. It is also submitted that, the petitioner should be permitted to deposit the rent as per the proviso, upon extension of time, not beyond the period of two months.

8. Learned advocate for