The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is a non-negotiable precondition for a tenant to invoke protection against eviction. The judgment underscores that even a disputed rent claim cannot override the statutory obligation to deposit admitted arrears within the prescribed time.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent-landlord instituted Ejectment Suit No. 308 of 2025 seeking possession of premises occupied by the petitioner-tenant. The tenant filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (1997 Act) to resist eviction, alleging a dispute over the quantum of rent and arrears. The landlord contended that the tenant had defaulted on rent payments since April 2025 and sought eviction on grounds of non-payment.
Key Facts
The tenant was served with summons on 20.11.2025.
On 19.12.2025, the tenant filed two applications: one under Section 7(1) seeking permission to deposit rent arrears and current rent, and another under Section 7(2) disputing the rent rate.
In the Section 7(1) application, the tenant prayed to deposit arrears from November 2022 to November 2025 (Rs. 1,48,000) plus statutory interest (Rs. 14,800), and current rent of Rs. 4,000 per month.
The Trial Court, by order dated 19.12.2025, permitted the tenant to deposit the "admitted arrear of rent as prayed for" along with interest at 10% p.a. and current rent.
The tenant claimed the court department refused to accept the deposit on 07.01.2026.
On 08.01.2026, the tenant filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking direction to the court department to accept the deposit.
The Trial Court rejected this application by order dated 16.01.2026, holding that the tenant had failed to comply with Section 7(1).
On 23.02.2026, the Trial Court struck down the tenant’s written statement as "unnecessary and redundant" following the striking out of defence.
The tenant’s written statement was filed prior to the order dated 16.01.2026.
Procedural History
20.11.2025: Summons served on the tenant.
19.12.2025: Tenant files applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act.
19.12.2025: Trial Court passes order permitting deposit of "admitted arrears" and current rent.
07.01.2026: Tenant attempts deposit at court department; deposit refused.
08.01.2026: Tenant files Section 151 CPC application seeking direction to accept deposit.
16.01.2026: Trial Court rejects Section 151 application and strikes out tenant’s defence under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act.
23.02.2026: Trial Court rejects tenant’s written statement as redundant.
2026: Tenant files two Civil Revisions under Article 227: CO 369 of 2026 (against order dated 16.01.2026) and CO 1048 of 2026 (against order dated 23.02.2026).
05.05.2026: Calcutta High Court hears both revisions together and disposes of them by common order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) setting aside of the order dated 16.01.2026 which struck out his defence; (2) setting aside of the order dated 23.02.2026 rejecting his written statement; and (3) restoration of his right to defend the suit on merits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a tenant who disputes the quantum of rent arrears but fails to deposit the amount admitted by him within the statutory period under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, forfeits his right to raise any defence, including the dispute under Section 7(2), and whether the court is justified in striking out the defence without first adjudicating the Section 7(2) application.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that no rent arrears were admitted, as the tenant had explicitly stated in his Section 7(1) application that the deposit was made "without prejudice to his rights and contentions." He contended that since a dispute over rent rate and quantum was pending under Section 7(2), the Trial Court could not strike out the defence under Section 7(3) without first deciding the Section 7(2) application. He relied on Syed Khawaja Moin & Another v. Md. Safi Alam to argue that where landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, defence cannot be struck out prematurely. He also cited Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. Parbati Chorone Roquitte to show that courts may permit deposit even after delay if no mala fide is shown.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel submitted that the tenant had clearly admitted arrears by praying for deposit of Rs. 1,48,000 as arrears and Rs. 14,800 as interest. The order dated 19.12.2025 explicitly recognized these as "admitted arrears," and the tenant accepted it without challenge. The failure to deposit within the statutory deadline of 30 days from service of summons (i.e., by 20.12.2025) rendered Section 7(2) inapplicable. The respondent relied on Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed & Others to argue that Section 7(2) is contingent on compliance with Section 7(1).
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual and contextual analysis of Sections 7(1), 7(2), and 7(3) of the 1997 Act. It held that the tenant’s admission of arrears was not merely implied but explicit, as evidenced by the prayer in his Section 7(1) application and his subsequent conduct.
"In paragraph 6 of the said application, the petitioner has stated thus: ‘………. The Defendant on good faith continued to pay such rent @ Rs. 4000/- p.m. to the Plaintiff till the month of April, 2025 in the Dairy maintained by the Plaintiff, after which the Plaintiff refused to accept rent.’"
The Court emphasized that the phrase "without prejudice to his rights and contentions" did not negate the admission of arrears but merely preserved the tenant’s right to contest the quantum later under Section 7(2). However, such a dispute could only be entertained if the mandatory deposit under Section 7(1) was made.
The Court further held that the tenant’s delay in depositing the admitted amount - attempting payment on 07.01.2026, over 18 days after the statutory deadline - was fatal. Section 7(1) imposes a strict, non-extendable timeline. The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Pawan Kumar Agarwal, distinguishing it on facts and noting that the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 are not available to High Courts.
"The tenant cannot simply refuse to pay anything; they must deposit the rent at the rate they believe to be true, which stands admitted by implication."
The Court also distinguished Syed Khawaja Moin on the ground that in that case, the very existence of the landlord-tenant relationship was in dispute - a situation absent here. The Court affirmed that once the relationship is admitted, Section 7(3) applies automatically upon non-compliance with Section 7(1).
The Verdict
The petitioner’s appeals were dismissed. The Calcutta High Court upheld the orders dated 16.01.2026 and 23.02.2026, confirming the striking out of the tenant’s defence under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The Court held that the written statement was rightly rejected as redundant. The tenant retains the right to cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses, as per Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Deposit of Admitted Rent Is Non-Negotiable
Practitioners must advise tenants that any prayer for deposit of arrears - even if qualified as "without prejudice" - constitutes an admission under Section 7(1).
Failure to deposit within 30 days of service of summons (or by the date specified in the court’s order) triggers automatic striking out of defence under Section 7(3), regardless of pending Section 7(2) applications.
Courts will not entertain belated deposits as cure for non-compliance.
Section 7(2) Is Not a Standalone Remedy
A Section 7(2) application cannot be filed or entertained unless Section 7(1) conditions are satisfied.
Disputes over rent rate or quantum are secondary; the primary obligation is to deposit the amount the tenant acknowledges as due.
Tenants must deposit the amount they concede is owed, even if they dispute the full claim.
Judicial Restraint on Equity-Based Relief
High Courts cannot invoke equitable principles to override statutory mandates, even if the tenant appears to act in good faith.
The Pawan Kumar Agarwal precedent does not create a general exception; it was fact-specific and grounded in the Supreme Court’s extraordinary powers under Article 142.
Practitioners must avoid citing such judgments as binding precedent in High Court proceedings unless the facts are nearly identical.
