Calcutta High Court: In an application preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the trial court’s order rejecting petitioner’s extension application for depositing arrear rent, even if filed after the specified period but within the extended period and allowing the plaintiff’s prayer for striking off the defense against possession delivery, a single-judge bench comprising of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,* J., dismissed the petition under Article 227, affirming the trial court’s order, stating that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and did not exceed its authority in rejecting the extension applications.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, an ejectment suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff, for eviction against the deceased father of the petitioners-defendant, who were the successors in interest. The original defendant in the suit filed a written statement denying the allegations and an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (the Act) for arrear rent determination. The trial court directed the deposit of a specified sum within one month, which the petitioner failed to comply with due to the father’s death and other reasons. However, the amount was ultimately deposited within an extended period. The petitioner also failed to deposit the monthly rent for December 2018 to September 2019 on time but deposited it along with statutory interest later.
The trial court vide order dated order dated 21-12-2019 rejected the petitioners’ application under Section 151 of the CPC and allowed the application of the opposite party under Section 7(3) of the Act praying for striking off the defence of the petitioners against delivery of possession. The petitioner preferred the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Moot Point
-
Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the applications for extension of time for depositing arrear rent and in allowing the plaintiff’s prayer for striking off the defence of the defendant against delivery of possession?
-
Whether the court has jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of current monthly rent under section 7(1)(c) of the Act?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in rejecting their applications for extension of time to deposit arrear rent and for acceptance of delayed deposits of current rent. It was contended that the trial court had the jurisdiction to consider such applications even if filed within the extended period specified in the statute. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the trial court correctly interpreted the provisions of the Act, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing arrear rent or current monthly rent beyond the periods stipulated by the statute. It was contended that the word “shall” in the relevant provision makes the time limit imperative.
Court’s Assessment
The Court analysed the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, particularly Section 7(2), and opined that while the court has discretion to grant an extension of time for depositing arrear rent, such extension must be requested before the expiry of the period fixed by the original order. The Court stated that the legislature intended to give discretion to the court regarding the extension of time for depositing arrear rent. The Court emphasised that the word “shall” used in both Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act is imperative, indicating that the provisions must be complied with strictly and concluded that the trial court’s decision was neither arbitrary nor illegal.
Regarding the deposit of current monthly rent, the Court relied on Bina Devi Binany v. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, (2015) 3 CLT 384; Omprakash Thakur v. Bhola Shaw, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 21560 and Saurav Das v. Kartick Dutta, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 9155, and held that there is no provision allowing the court to extend the time beyond the period specified in Section 7(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the trial court does not have the authority to extend the time for depositing the current rent month by month. The Court held that the trial court had acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner’s applications and there exists no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the present application and held that the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction in rejecting the applications for extension of time and allowing the plaintiff’s prayer for striking off the defence of the defendant against delivery of possession.
[Kabita Biswas v. Sadhan Dasgupta, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1456, order dated 13-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. E. Bhattacharya and Ms. Pooja Sah, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Tarak Nath Halder, Counsel for the Opposite Party
Buy Constitution of India HERE
