The time prescribed under the tenancy law for the deposit of rent is mandatory and not subject to judicial extension. Failure to comply with these statutory timelines results in the striking out of the defense against eviction, as the legislature excludes discretion to ensure compliance with substantive obligations.

JUDGMENT :

OM NARAYAN RAI, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated April 08, 2025 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 06 of 2025 whereby the petitioners’ applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter “the Code”) have been rejected and the provisions of Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter “the 1997 Act”) have been invoked.

2. The opposite parties have instituted Ejectment Suit No. 06 of 2025 before the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta for eviction of the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground of negligence and default. In the said suit summonses were served upon the petitioners on January 31, 2025 and the petitioners entered appearance in the suit on February 27, 2025. On the February 27, 2025 itself, the petitioners filed two applications - one under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act and the other under Section 7(2) thereof.

3. The application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act was allowed on the same date i.e. on February 27, 2025 thereby permitting the petitioners to deposit the current monthly rents and the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act was posted for hearing on the next date in the suit.

4. The petitioners could not deposit the current rent within the period prescribed under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. Therefore, the petitioners filed two applications under Section 151 of the Code. One of the said applications was filed on March 19, 2025, whereby the learned trial Court was requested to pass an order under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act. The subsequent application under Section 151 of the Code had been filed on the immediately following day i.e. March 20, 2025 whereby the petitioners prayed for permission to deposit the rent for the month of February, 2025 and the subsequent months along with a direction upon the department to accept such deposit.

5. Both the said applications have been rejected by the order impugned. Hence the present revisional application.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

6. Ms. De, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that on the date when the applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act were moved i.e. on February 27, 2025 no order was passed by the learned trial Court and the matters were only posted for hearing on the next date fixed in the suit. She further submits that the learned advocate for the petitioners could not attend the Court on any day thereafter till March 19, 2025 due to a bereavement in her family (i.e. the grandmother of the said learned Advocate had passed away).

7. It is submitted that no order had been passed on the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act on February 27, 2025 when the matter was moved and the matter was simply posted to the next date in the suit. She submits that in such view of the matter, the petitioners had no occasion to deposit the current monthly rent in terms of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act.

8. It is further submitted that the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners came to learn about the order dated February 27, 2025 much later i.e. only on March