Supreme Court Upholds Strict Adherence to West Bengal Tenancy Act Rent Deposit Rules
The Supreme Court dismissed a tenant's appeal, affirming that rent deposit and application filing under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act are mandatory within 30 days of summons, with no extension available via the Limitation Act for initial compliance.
The Supreme Court, in Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed & Ors., dismissed the tenant’s appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of the Small Causes Court and the Calcutta High Court.
The dispute arose out of an ejectment suit instituted by the landlord on grounds including arrears of rent. The tenant, after a delay of 17 days beyond the statutory 30-day period, moved applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act), accompanied by a plea for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The central issue before the Court was whether a tenant could invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to cure non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of depositing arrears of rent and filing an application within the stipulated 30-day period under the WBPT Act.
The Bench underscored the mandatory character of Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and the opening part of Section 7(2), noting that the Legislature’s use of the word “shall” leaves no scope for discretion. The Apex Court further held that Section 40 of the WBPT Act curtails the general application of the Limitation Act, such that when the WBPT Act prescribes a specific and shorter limitation, it cannot be extended through recourse to the Limitation Act.
Clarifying the scope of the proviso to Section 7(2), the Court observed that the limited extension of up to two months provided therein pertains only to the deposit of the rent amount determined by the court after adjudication. It does not extend to the initial mandatory deposit of admitted arrears or to the timely filing of the rent determination application.
Since the tenant had failed to satisfy these twin obligations within the statutory period, their defence stood liable to be struck out under Section 7(3) of the Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction decree.
Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar.
Comments