Section 7 WBPT Act | Non-Deposit of Admitted Arrears Within Timeline Renders Tenant's Application Non-Maintainable : Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has clarified that a tenant's application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 becomes non-maintainable if admitted arrears are not deposited within the prescribed timeline, even during extraordinary circumstances like the Covid-19 pandemic. The judgment reinforces that procedural compliance under Section 7(1) is a prerequisite for invoking Section 7(2) protections.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Smt. Bidyut Das, instituted Ejectment Suit No. 37 of 2020 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court at Alipore, seeking eviction of the opposite party, Sri Swapan Kumar Biswas, on grounds of tenancy governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The opposite party, while admitting the tenancy, filed an application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act, seeking relief from eviction.

Key Facts

• The opposite party admitted to paying rent to the petitioner only up to January 2017
• He claimed to have deposited rent with the Rent Controller up to November 2017
• There was no deposit of rent from December 2017 to June 2020, either with the Rent Controller or the trial court
• The opposite party began depositing rent with the trial court only from July 2020
• The trial court allowed the application under Section 7(2), directing deposit of arrears only for February and March 2017, holding the tenant a defaulter for only two months

Procedural History

• 2020: Ejectment Suit No. 37 of 2020 filed by the petitioner
• Date not specified: Opposite party filed application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act
• 18.12.2025: Trial court allowed the application, directing deposit of arrears for February and March 2017 only
• 2026: Present revisional application (CO. 564 of 2026) filed before the Calcutta High Court

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner:

• The opposite party admitted to paying rent only up to November 2017, making him a defaulter for December 2017 to June 2020
• Section 7(1) mandates deposit of admitted arrears within one month of appearance
• Non-compliance renders the Section 7(2) application non-maintainable
• Relied on Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed & Ors. (2025 SCC Online SC 1696)

For the Opposite Party:

• Non-deposit of rent from December 2017 to June 2020 was due to Covid-19 restrictions
• Cited the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitation periods during the pandemic

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Setting aside the trial court's order dated 18.12.2025
• Dismissal of the opposite party's application under Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act
• Costs and other consequential reliefs

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a tenant's application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 remains maintainable if the tenant fails to deposit admitted arrears of rent within the timeline prescribed under Section 7(1), even in light of extraordinary circumstances like the Covid-19 pandemic.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The opposite party admitted to not depositing rent from December 2017 to June 2020
• Section 7(1) mandates deposit of admitted arrears within one month of appearance
• Non-compliance with Section 7(1) renders the Section 7(2) application non-maintainable
• Relied on Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed & Ors. (2025 SCC Online SC 1696), where the Supreme Court held that non-deposit of admitted arrears under Section 7(1) bars invocation of Section 7(2)
• The Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation extension expired on 31.05.2022, and the arrears remained unpaid even thereafter

For the Opposite Party

• Non-deposit of rent was due to Covid-19 restrictions
• Cited the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitation periods during the pandemic
• Argued that the trial court's discretion under Section 7(2) should be upheld

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the statutory framework under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, emphasizing the mandatory nature of procedural compliance. Key observations included:

1. Admission of Arrears: The opposite party admitted in his application that rent from December 2017 to June 2020 was not deposited anywhere. This constituted admitted arrears, which under Section 7(1), ought to have been deposited within one month of appearance.

2. Legislative Intent: The Court underscored that Section 7 was designed to protect tenants from eviction, but only subject to compliance with the deposit requirements. The tenant's failure to deposit admitted arrears within the prescribed timeline deprived him of the protection under Section 7(2).

3. Covid-19 Extension Irrelevant: While acknowledging the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods during the pandemic, the Court noted:

   • The extension expired on 31.05.2022
   • A substantial portion of the arrears pertained to the period before Covid-19 (December 2017 - February 2020), when no restrictions existed
   • Thus, the pandemic could not justify non-compliance for the entire period

4. Precedent Application: The Court relied on Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed & Ors. (2025 SCC Online SC 1696), where the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with Section 7(1) renders an application under Section 7(2) a "dead letter". The relevant paragraph from the judgment was quoted:

"In view of the foregoing, while bringing the said Section, the legislative intent was to provide protection to the tenant against eviction, subject to compliance of deposit of arrears of rent if there is no dispute as to amount of rent, within one month from the date of service of summons, along with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum. The tenant is further required to deposit the regular rent as prescribed in Section 7(1)(c). In case, there is a dispute of the amount of rent payable, the tenant is required to deposit the amount due as admitted by him within thirty days and file an application conjointly for determination of rent within the same period. The said application may possibly be entertained and decided by the Court thereafter only. This Court in the case of Bijay Kumar (supra) had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act wherein the tenant had not deposited or paid the admitted rent while moving an application seeking determination of rent. Trial Court while allowing such application granted time to pay the admitted rent, but High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court. While confirming the order of the High Court on the issue of deposit of rent admitted by tenant under Section 7(2) on the application for determination of rent, this Court observed as under."

1. Conclusion: The Court held that the trial court erred in entertaining the application under Section 7(2), as the opposite party failed to comply with Section 7(1). The application was thus non-maintainable.

The Verdict

The Calcutta High Court allowed the revisional application, setting aside the trial court's order dated 18.12.2025. The opposite party's application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was dismissed. There was no order as to costs. The Court, however, granted the opposite party liberty to withdraw the deposited arrears by filing an appropriate application before the trial court, which would be considered on its merits.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable

• Section 7(1) is a mandatory prerequisite for invoking Section 7(2) protections. Tenants must deposit admitted arrears within one month of appearance to avoid their application being rendered non-maintainable
• Courts will strictly interpret compliance timelines, even in extraordinary circumstances like pandemics. Tenants cannot rely on limitation extensions to justify non-deposit of arrears for periods unrelated to the extraordinary event

Covid-19 Extensions Have Limits

• While the Supreme Court's suo motu order extended limitation periods during Covid-19, this does not absolve tenants of their obligation to deposit arrears for periods outside the extension window
• Tenants must proactively deposit arrears as soon as restrictions are lifted, failing which their applications under Section 7(2) will be dismissed

Landlord's Remedy Is Strengthened

• Landlords can now challenge Section 7(2) applications on grounds of non-compliance with Section 7(1), even if the tenant claims extraordinary circumstances
• The judgment reinforces the landlord's right to eviction where tenants fail to meet statutory deposit requirements, providing a clear legal recourse for landlords facing similar disputes

Strategic Takeaways for Practitioners

• For Tenants:

  • Ensure strict compliance with Section 7(1) deposit timelines
  • Document all rent payments and deposits with the Rent Controller or court
  • Seek legal advice immediately upon receiving summons to avoid procedural defaults

• For Landlords:

  • Scrutinize Section 7(2) applications for compliance with Section 7(1)
  • Challenge applications where admitted arrears are not deposited within the prescribed timeline
  • Rely on Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed & Ors. to argue non-maintainability of such applications