Application For Determination Of Rent Along With Deposit Of Admitted Rent Is Mandatory U/S. 7 West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that in the absence of twin conditions, i.e. the rent specified has not been paid and the the application for determination of rent has not been filed within the period of thirty days as prescribed, tenant cannot avail the benefit of protection against eviction as envisaged under Section 7 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT) Act.

An appeal was filed against the order of the High Court and the Small Cause Court.

The Bench of Justice J.K Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “In addition, Section 7(1) and first part of sub-section (2) of Section 7 are comparable, both requiring deposit/pay admitted/undisputed amount of rent. However, Section 7(2) casts an additional obligation on the tenant to file an application for determination for rent along with such deposit within the specified time frame. The Legislature in its wisdom did not provide for any extension of time for payment or deposit under Section 7(1), making it clear that no such extension was intended in the corresponding part in Section 7(2)...Moreover, it can be said that since in subsection (3) of Section 7, the consequence of non-compliance has been specified, therefore, use of the word ‘shall’ in Sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 7(2) is a mandatory compliance for the tenant, failing which, his defence against eviction shall be struck off.”

Senior Advocate Uday Gupta represented the Appellant, while Advocate Swarnendu Chatterjee represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The relationship between the Appellant and the Respondents were of tenant and landlord. An ejectment suit was instituted on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona-fide need and sub-letting. The Applicant made an application in the said suit under Section 7(1) of the WBPT with the prayer to deposit the ‘current rent’ for the month of November 2022 at the rate of Rs. 1090/- per month. Similarly, application under Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act, was filed seeking determination of default period, if any, and to refund the excess amount paid.

However, the Small Cause rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act observing that the period to file an application as specified under Section 7(1) of the WBPT Act is thirty days, which cannot be extended by aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Appellant/Tenant preferred a revision before the High Court, but the same was dismissed. Thus, the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The question before the Supreme Court was whether applications filed under Sections 7(1) and (2) of the WBPT Act by the tenant without deposit of rent after lapse of statutory period of thirty days, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, rejected by Court of Small Causes as not entertainable, confirmed by the High Court was justified?

The Court while referring to Section 7(2) of the Act noted that to seek protection against eviction, the tenant was required to deposit the admitted amount of rent within the time as specified, i.e., within one month from the date of summons served or where tenant appears in the suit without the summons being served upon him, along with an application for determination of the rent so payable.

“Thus, in case of disputed rent, this Court was of the view that to avail the benefit of protection against eviction under the WBPT Act, the tenant has to do the following to avoid eviction, first, to deposit rent admitted by him to be due; second, an application for determination of rent payable be filed along with. The tenant had neither deposited, nor paid the admitted rent and had only filed the application for determination of rent belatedly along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963”, the Court said.

Further, the Court also observed that the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 visà-vis WBPT Act was not in general, but subject to the provisions of the limitation specified in the WBPT Act itself.

“In this sense, this Court was right in observing that if a lesser time period or limitation has been specified for proceedings under the WBPT Act, then extension of time applying the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be allowed”, the Court added.

The Court held that in the absence of twin conditions, i.e. the rent specified has not been paid and the the application for determination of rent has been filed within the period of thirty days as prescribed, tenant cannot avail the benefit of protection against eviction as envisaged under Section 7 of WBPT Act.

Thereafter, the Court considered the issue of whether compliance with the provisions of Sections 7(1) and 7(2) so far as it relates to payment or deposit of the rent and filing of application within the time as specified is mandatory or directory?

The Bench observed, “Moreover, it can be said that since in subsection (3) of Section 7, the consequence of non-compliance has been specified, therefore, use of the word ‘shall’ in Sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 7(2) is a mandatory compliance for the tenant, failing which, his defence against eviction shall be struck off.”

Subsequently, the Court addressed the facts of the case and noted that the rent was required to be deposited within thirty days along with an application immediately on reopening of Courts, but application was filed with a delay of 17 days. Therefore, due to non-compliance of deposit and filing of an application within the prescribed period of 30 days, the consequence as specified in sub-section (3) of Section 7 shall follow. The benefit of proviso with respect to the extended time would not be available to the appellant prior to rent determination stage.

Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed while maintaining the order passed by the learned Small Causes Court and the High Court.

Cause Title: Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School V. Ismat Ahmed & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 984)

Click here to read/download Judgment