A civil revision challenged an order dismissing an application to deposit arrear rent and allowing ejectment under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that delay in depositing current rent cannot be condoned and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ML41 September sandip Ct. 19 02.09.2024
In The High Court At Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
C.O. No. 3095 of 2024
Swapan Bhowmick Vs.
Sanchindra Mohan Dhar & Ors.
Mr. Gautam Chakraborty,
Mr. Pulak Ray … For the petitioner.
This is an application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
The Order No. 19, dated April 23, 2024 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 275 of 2021 , is under challenge in the present revisional application.
The petitioner is a defendant in the connected Ejectment Suit.
The defendant had filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying permission to deposit arrear rent for the period from February 2023 to May 2023 alleging that he could not deposit the current rent for the said period due to his financial stringency.
The learned Trial judge by the order impugned has dismissed the said application and consequently has dismissed the application under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and has allowed an application under section 7(3) thereof.
Mr. Gautam Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though generally the extension of time to deposit the arrear rent is not permissible but when such extension is prayed for, pending disposal of an
2
application under section 7(2) of the said Act of 1997, the situation is otherwise and the Court ought to have extended the said time. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Single benches of this Court in the cases of Saurav Das vs. Kartick Dutta & Ors. , reported in 2019 SCC Online Cal 9155 and Mithun @ Akhtar Ali Vs. Sk. Aziz Haque & Ors. , reported in 2017 SCC Online Cal 18467 .
Heard Mr. Chakraborty, perused the materials on record.
In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya & Anr. , reported in (2019) 10 SCC 660, there is no scope to condone the delay in depositing the current rent under Section 7(1)(c) of the said Act of 1997 and the failure of the defendant to comply with the provision of section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 would automatically attract the provision of section 7(3) thereof.
The order impugned for the aforesaid reasons does not call for any interference.
C.O. 3095 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should condone the delay in depositing current rent under Section 7(1)(c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Whether the failure to comply with Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 attracts the provision of Section 7(3).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saurav Das vs. Kartick Dutta & Ors.Referred¶16
2019 SCC Online Cal 9155 · Who else cites this
Mithun @ Akhtar Ali Vs. Sk. Aziz Haque & Ors.Referred¶16
2017 SCC Online Cal 18467 · Who else cites this
Bijay Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya & Anr.Relied on¶18
(2019) 10 SCC 660 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Swapan Bhowmick
Sanchindra Mohan Dhar & Ors.
Biswajit Basu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
