Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 637
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Raj Kishore Choudhury @ Chowdhury – Petitioner
Versus
Devraj Agarwal – Opp. Party
C.O. 2743 of 2025
Decided On : 13-08-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Somnath Choudhury, Ms. Arpita Chowdhury
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Pratyush Patwari, Mr. Laxmi Agarwal
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Tenancy Law
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.151
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT : S.6, S.7(1), S.7(2), S.7(3)
Headnote
(B) Tenant’s defaulter status - Failure to deposit rent within stipulated period leads to eviction consequences under Section 6 of the Act - Provisions are mandatory, requiring strict adherence by tenant. (Paras 16, 20)
(C) Extension of time for deposit - Time limits for deposits cannot be extended unless a timely application for extension is made. (Paras 17, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a tenant, failed to deposit rent from April 2019 to March 2022, alleging inability due to various circumstances, including a cease work at the court and his illness. The court concluded that the rent obligations were not met as directed.
Findings of Court:
The trial judge properly rejected the tenant's application to deposit arrears and struck out the tenant's defense for failure to comply with statutory requirements.
Issues: The court addressed whether the tenant complied with the rent deposit requirements and if the reasons provided justified the failure to pay rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that provisions governing rent deposits under the Act are mandatory, and non-compliance leads to eviction, emphasizing a tenant must meet statutory requirements rigorously.
Result: The application under Article 227 was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application under article 227 concerning eviction order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background on rent payment directives and compliance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. arguments regarding failure to deposit rent due. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's observations on compliance issues and evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. mandatory provisions of the west bengal premises tenancy act. (Para 14 , 16 , 19) |
| 6. legal reasoning from bijay kumar singh case. (Para 18) |
| 7. conclusion and dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated November 11, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 5th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.1230 of 2017.
2. By the order impugned the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner herein praying for permission to deposit the rent from April, 2019 to March, 2022 together with interest stood rejected and the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 stood allowed.
3. The opposite party herein filed a suit for eviction on the grounds enumerated under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (for short 1997 Act). After entering appearance in the said suit the petitioner filed applications under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act. The learned trial judge, by an order dated June 21, 2021, disposed of the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act by directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.60720/- as per the agreement and consent of both the parties as arrear rent from August, 2011 to March, 2019 to the plaintiff within the prescribed period. The petitioner was further directed to pay the rent for the month of April, 2019 to June 2019 to the opposite party and the petitioner was directed to continue to deposit the current rent in Court in accordance with law.
4. The petitioner thereafter paid the sum of Rs.60720/- to the opposite party by a demand draft dated April 2, 2019 and the opposite party accepted the said payment. Alleging non- compliance of the provisions of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the opposite party filed an application under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act praying for striking out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession. Such application was filed on February 17, 2022. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on March 9, 2022 praying for an order permitting the petitioner to deposit the rent for the months of April, 2019 to March, 2022 together with interest and to allow the petitioner to deposit current rent month by month thereafter.
5. The application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected and the application under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act stood allowed by the impugned order.
6. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not deposit the monthly rent from the month of April, 2019 onwards on account of the cease work called by the Bar Association of Howrah Court, subsequent illness of the petitioner as well as COVID-19 pandemic. He further submits that immediately after the situation became normal the petitioner filed the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order permitting the petitioner to deposit the arrear rent. The learned advocate further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several orders passed in a suo moto writ petition extended the period of limitation under various statutes and, therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to deposit the arrear rent by extending the time for making deposit of the rent for the aforesaid period. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire arrears of r
