A recent Supreme Court of India decision in the case of Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v/s Ismat Ahmed & Others addressed a crucial question regarding the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act). The central issue was whether an application filed under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act could be entertained if the tenant had not deposited the rent within the statutory 30-day period, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Background of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, challenged an order from the High Court at Calcutta that upheld a decision by the Small Causes Court. The Small Causes Court had rejected the tenant's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which sought to excuse a 17-day delay in filing an application under Section 7(1) of the WBPT Act. The tenant, who occupied a flat at 44, Elliot Road, Kolkata, with a monthly rent of Rs. 1090/-, was facing an ejectment suit filed by the landlords on June 11, 2019. The summons for this suit was served on the tenant on September 29, 2022. Following a Durga Puja vacation from September 30 to October 27, 2022, the tenant filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act on November 14, 2022.
The Small Causes Court rejected the tenant’s request to condone the delay, stating that the 30-day period to file an application under Section 7(1) could not be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court affirmed this decision, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Arguments and Analysis:
The tenant's senior counsel argued that the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) should have been considered on their merits, along with the application for condonation of delay. The counsel referred to the proviso in Section 7(2), which allows for a one-time extension of up to two months, and contended that this provision should also apply to Section 7(1).
Conversely, the landlord's counsel argued that the applications were not filed within the mandatory 30-day period from the date of receiving the summons, and therefore, the Small Causes Court correctly rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. An amicus curiae presented two propositions: first, that the proviso to Section 7(2) applies to Section 7(1) as well, and second, that if the first proposition fails, the proviso must be confined to the latter part of Section 7(2) alone.
The Supreme Court examined Section 7 of the WBPT Act in detail. The court noted that Section 7(1)(b) mandates that a tenant must pay or deposit all arrears of rent within one month of the service of summons. If there is a dispute over the rent amount, Section 7(2) requires the tenant to deposit the admitted amount along with an application for rent determination within the same one-month period. The court highlighted that the word "together" in Section 7(2) implies that the deposit and the application must be filed simultaneously.
The court emphasized that the consequence of non-compliance, as specified in Section 7(3), is that the tenant's defense against eviction is struck out. The court referred to its earlier judgment in
Bijay Kumar Singh and Others vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya and Another , which established that depositing rent is a precondition to avoid eviction for non-payment.
The court further analyzed the use of the words "shall" and "may" within the Act. It determined that "shall" is used to describe the tenant's obligation to pay or deposit rent within the specified time, indicating a mandatory requirement. In contrast, "may" is used in the proviso to Section 7(2) to grant a court discretion to extend the time for paying the amount determined by the Civil Judge, but only after the initial mandatory deposit has been made.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the compliance required under Section 7(1) and the first part of Section 7(2) is mandatory for a tenant seeking protection against eviction. The court held that the proviso allowing for an extension of time under Section 7(2) applies only to the payment of the amount determined by the Civil Judge after the initial, mandatory deposit and application have been made. Since the tenant in the present case did not fulfill the mandatory requirements of depositing the rent and filing the application within the 30-day period, the benefit of the proviso was not available.
The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming that the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be used to extend the mandatory time limit for rent deposit prescribed in the WBPT Act.
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
Limitation Act, 1963
