Court reinforced that adherence to the mandatory deposit requirements in eviction cases is crucial, and failure to comply results in automatic consequences under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. This revisional application arises out of an order dated December 5, 2024 passed by the learned Judge, 5 t h Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment suit no. 179 of 2007.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court allowed the application under Section 7 (3) of the West Bengal Premises T enancy Act(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), filed by the opposite parties/ plaintiffs. The learned Court also disposed of the application filed by the added defendants / petitioners. The petitioners as the heirs of the erstwhile defendant no. 2 (a)] prayed for adjudication of the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants and also for permission to deposit arrear rents with interest.

3. The petitioners contend that the suit was filed for eviction of the defendants from the property, and the petitioners entered appearance in the same at a later stage. Upon being added as party defendants they came to learn that there were unpaid rents as arrears. By an order passed by the High Court, the petitioners were added as defendants. The petitioners filed their written statement. According to the petitioners they were unaware of the status of the suit. The other defendants were old and were unable to look after the suit. Upon entering appearance in the suit, the petitioners had come to know that rents since 2017 were due. The petitioners made a request to the landlords to accept the rent, but the landlords refused. Thus, the petitioners undertook to pay the entire amount that would be adjudicated by the court towards arrear dues, upon acceptance of the application for appropriate order and upon adjudicating the relationship between the petitioners and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contested the said application by filing a written objection. Plaintiffs contended that the petitioners were the legal heirs of the original defendant no. 2(a) and had stepped into the shoes of one of the deceased defendants. Thus, the petitioners did not have any right to pray for further permission to deposit arrear rents as well as the current rent. Moreover, rents were due and payable since 2 017, when the original defendant no. 2(a) was alive, but the said defendant did not deposit the rent. The petitioners could not be given permission to deposit t he arrear rents, as the prayer for deposit and the application filed subsequently by the petitioners, had become time barred.

4. The learned Court observed that the original suit was filed against Kashinath Shaw and Mira Shaw. Mira Shaw died. The defendant nos. 2(a) to 2(c) were substituted by order dated November 28, 2018. The defendant no. 2(a) died. The petitioners were added as defendant no. 2(a)(i), 2(a)(ii), 2(a)(iii) and 2(a)(iv). The original defendants had filed an application under Section 7 (2) of the said Act and the same was disposed of by t he court on J une 25, 2009. The said order recorded that the defendants had deposited the rent before the Rent Controller prior to filing of the suit. The petitioners appeared before the Court and filed an application to add themselves as parties to the suit on June 8, 2 022, upon death of the defendant No. 2(a). The application was rejected by the learned trial court. The order w as set aside and the petitioners were added as defendants nos. 2(a)(i), 2(a)(ii), 2(a)(iii) and 2(a)(iv), by the o rder of the High court. Thereafter, a written statement was filed by the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the title of the plaintiffs, although the defendant no. 1, who was still alive and was contesting the suit from the very beginning had never disputed the relat