Tenant Must Deposit Admitted Rent Within 30 Days; Proviso Only Extends Time After Determination, Says Supreme Court

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar heard an appeal by a tenant challenging a Calcutta High Court order that had affirmed a Small Causes Court judgment refusing to condone a 17-day delay in filing applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act). The appeals arose from an ejectment suit filed by the landlord seeking possession on grounds of rent arrears, bona fide need and sub-letting.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that the statutory requirements in Section 7(1) and the first part of Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act were mandatory. The Court explained that a tenant, to obtain protection against eviction, had to deposit the admitted arrears and, where the rent was disputed, deposit the admitted amount “together with an application for determination of the rent payable” within thirty days of service of summons or appearance. The Court emphasised that the proviso to Section 7(2) which permitted an extension of time “only once and the period of such extension shall not exceed two months” applied only to the latter part of sub‑section (2) — i.e., to payment of the amount specified after judicial determination — and did not operate to extend the initial thirty‑day period for deposit and filing. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further quoted the statutory text noting that the tenant “shall” pay or deposit arrears within one month and that the proviso employed the word “may” for extension.

Background The tenant-appellant occupied Flat No. 8, First Floor, 44 Elliot Road, Kolkata, and admitted a monthly rent of Rs. 1,090. The landlord sued for eviction on 11 June 2019. Summons were served on 29 September 2022; courts in Kolkata were closed for Durga Puja from 30 September to 27 October 2022. On 14 November 2022 the tenant filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 17‑day delay. The Small Causes Court rejected the Section 5 application and held that the 30‑day limitation could not be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act; the High Court affirmed that order. The tenant argued that deposit of excess payments and the proviso to Section 7(2) entitled him to relief. The landlords contended that no pre‑deposit had been made and relied on Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya and other precedents to oppose extension. The Supreme Court analysed the text and scheme of Section 7, the use of “shall” and “may,” and precedents including Bijay Kumar and Debasish Paul, and concluded that initial deposit and filing within thirty days were mandatory. The Court found no room to apply Section 5 Limitation to enlarge the stipulated period and dismissed the appeal. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 984 Case Title: Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Uday Gupta (Senior Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee (Counsel) Also Appeared: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta (Senior Counsel as Amicus Curiae)