Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sagar Sharma vs Smt. Malati Sharma on 14 November, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
2025:CHC-AS:2091
14.11.2025
SL No.9
Court No.6
(gc)
CO 1962 of 2025
CAN 1 of 2025
Sri Sagar Sharma
Vs.
Smt. Malati Sharma
Mr. Debasis Sur,
Mr. Dilip Kumar Das,
Mr. Amitava Chowdhury
...for the Petitioner.
1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated
April 23, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Jr. Divn.), 1st Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly. By
the order impugned. The learned Court allowed
an application filed by the opposite party under
Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy
Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
2. According to the learned Court, the petitioner had
received the summons, first by registered post
with A/D on September 14, 2022 and thereafter
through the process server on November 7, 2022.
The petitioner appeared before the Court on
December 7, 2022 and filed an application on
January 6, 2023 with the permission to deposit
the arrear rent. The learned Court allowed the
deposit at the risk of the petitioner. However, the
learned Court found that there was a non-
compliance of Section 7(1) of the said Act, when
the application under section 7(1) of the said Act
2
2025:CHC-AS:2091
was considered along with the application under
section 7(3) thereof.
3. Mr. Debasis Sur, learned Advocate for the
petitioner submits that only a day's delay had
been caused from the date of appearance of the
defendant and as such the delay may be
condoned. It is further submitted that the
learned Court did not look into the records of
H.R.C. Case No.35 of 2018, while considering the
application under Section 7(2) of the said Act. The
learned Court was not right in holding that the
application under Section 7(2) was infructuous
and not maintainable in view of the non-
compliance of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the
said Act. The learned court ought to have
decided the application independently.
4. Considered the submissions. The law provides as
follows:-
"7. When a tenant can get the benefit of
protection against eviction. -
(1) (a) On a [suit] being instituted by the
landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred
to in section 6, the tenant shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (2) of this section, pay to
the landlord or deposit with [the Civil Judge] all
arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it
was last paid and upto the end of the month
previous to that in which the payment is made
together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per
annum.
3
2025:CHC-AS:2091
(b) Such payment or deposit shall be
made within one month of the service of
summons on the tenant or, where he appears
in the [suit] without the summons being
served upon him, within one month of his
appearance.
(c) The tenant shall thereafter continue to
pay to the landlord or deposit with [the Civil Judge]
month by month by the 15th of each succeeding
month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
(2) If in any (suit] referred to in sub-section (1),
there is any dispute as to the amount of the rent
payable by the tenant, the tenant shall, within the
time specified in that subsection, deposit with [the
Civil Judge) the amount admitted by him to be due
from him together with an application for
determination of the rent payable. No such
deposit shall be accepted unless it is
accompanied by an application for
determination of the rent payable. On receipt
of the application, (the Civil Judge) shall, having
regard to the rate at which rent was last paid and
the period for which default may have been made
by the tenant, make, as soon as possible within a
period not exceeding one year, an order specifying
the amount, if any, due from the tenant and,
thereupon, the tenant shall, within one month of
the date of such order, pay to the landlord the
amount so specified in the order:
Provided that having regard to the
circumstances of the case an extension of
time may be granted by [the Civil Judge) only
once and the period of such extension shall
not exceed two months.
(3) If the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount
referred to in sub-section (1) or subsection (2)
within the time specified therein or within such
4
2025:CHC-AS:2091
extended time as may be granted, [the Civil Judge]
shall order the defence against delivery of
possession to be struck out and shall proceed with
the hearing of the [suit]."
5. In this case, admittedly the summons was served
by registered post with A.D. on September 14,
2022 and by the process server on November 7,
2022. The application under Section 7(1) was
filed on January 6, 2023 and thereafter the
admitted arrears were deposited. This was not in
compliance with the provisions of law. The
admitted arrear rent along with statutory interest
should have been deposited within one month
from the service of summons on the tenant. The
Court has found from the records that, the
summons were served on September 14, 2022
and again on November 7, 2022. The petitioner
failed to comply with the provisions of Section
7(1).
6. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this Court is that, without compliance of
Section 7(1) of the said Act, the question of
adjudication of the application under Section 7(2)
would not arise at all. Section 7(2) deals with the
determination of the rent if there is a dispute with
regard to the rent or determination of the
relationship between the landlord and tenant.
Only if the provisions of Section 7(1) are complied
with, the question of deciding the application
5
2025:CHC-AS:2091
under Section 7(2) would arise and admittedly the
application under Section 7(2) was also filed after
the period stipulated under Section 7(1) had
expired.
7. In the decision of Seventh Day Adventist Senior
Secondary School Vs. Ismat Ahmed & Ors.
reported in 2025 INSC 984, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as follows:-
"12. Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions
makes it clear that as per sub section (1) of
Section 7, in a suit for eviction filed by the
landlord on any grounds as specified in
Section 6 of the WBPT Act, the tenant shall,
subject to provisions of sub-section (2), pay
to the landlord or deposit in the Court, all
arrears of rent calculated at the rate at which
it was last paid together with interest at the
rate of ten per cent per annum. As mandated
by Section 7(1)(b), the said payment or
deposit shall be made within one month from
the date of service of the summons on tenant
or from the date of appearance in case the
tenant appears without service of summons.
The said two provisions apply in a case where
arrears of rent are admitted. Thereafter,
Section 7(1)(c) puts a further condition that
after the admitted arrears are paid, the
tenant shall continue to pay or deposit with
the landlord or Civil Judge, as the case may
be, a monthly sum of rent at that rate on or
before fifteenth day of consecutive month.
13. As per sub-section (2), if there is a
dispute as to the amount of rent payable by
the tenant, he is required to deposit the
admitted amount due from him in the Court
within the time as specified [one month as
per Section 7(1)(b)] 'together' with an
application for determination of the rent
payable. It is emphasised that deposit of rent
shall not be accepted unless the said prayer
is accompanied with an application for
determination of the rent. Meaning thereby,
to seek protection against eviction, the tenant
is required to deposit the admitted amount of
rent within the time as specified, i.e., within
one month from the date of summons served
or where tenant appears in the suit without
6
2025:CHC-AS:2091
the summons being served upon him, along
with an application for determination of the
rent so payable. As such, in case where there
is no dispute as to arrears of rent, it ought to
be paid within a month and, in case it is in
dispute, even then, tenant would be required
to deposit within the same time coupled with
an application as discussed above.
14. To supplement the aforesaid, word
'together' used in Section 7(2) preceding 'with
an application for determination of the rent
payable' emphasises that the deposit of
admitted amount of rent within a period of
thirty days as specified must accompany the
application for determination of rent payable.
At this stage, we can profitably refer to 'P.
Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon'5
to understand the meaning of 'together'.
According to the same, 'together' means "in
company" or "conjointly" or "simultaneously".
Accordingly, on contextual application of the
word 'together', it is clear that the application
for determination of rent must be filed within
the same period which is provided for
'deposit' or 'pay', i.e., thirty days.
15. On receiving such application, the Court
having regard to the rate of rent last paid and
period of which default has been made by the
tenant shall make an order on such
application not later than one year and
thereupon the tenant shall within the period
of one month of the date of such order, pay to
the landlord the amount so specified in the
order. That is to say, the determination of the
rent on the parameters as specified in the
latter part of sub-section (2) and on such
determination within one month of the date
of the order, the amount as specified in the
order is to be paid. The proviso thereto deals
with the extension of time, which can only be
once and not beyond period of two months.
16. Having perused Section 7 of WBPT Act, it
is apparent that sub-section (1) is subject to
sub-section (2). Further, sub-section (3)
specifies consequences of non-compliance of
sub-sections (1) and (2) by the tenant,
leading to striking out of defence against
delivery of possession and the Court shall
proceed with the hearing of the suit. Sub-
section (4) of Section 7 of WBPT Act makes it
clear that in a proceeding of eviction, no
order for delivery of possession of the
premises to the landlord shall be passed by
the Court on the ground of default of
payment if the tenant deposits the rent under
7
2025:CHC-AS:2091
sub-sections (1) or (2), but the Court may
allow such cost to the landlord as deemed fit.
As per proviso, it is clear that if tenant was
allowed the relief as indicated hereinabove,
but later he makes default in payment of rent
for four months within one year or in case
three successive rental periods, where the
rent is not payable monthly, the relief of
protection against eviction available under
sub-section (4) cannot be allowed granting
benefit of protection against eviction to the
tenant.
17. 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 - "21. ...the deposit
of rent along with an application for
determination of dispute is a precondition to
avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment
of arrears of rent. In view thereof, tenant will
not be able to take recourse to Section 5 of
the Limitation Act as it is not an application
alone which is required to be filed by the
tenant but the tenant has to deposit admitted
arrears of rent as well."
18. Thus, in case of disputed rent, this Court
was of the view that to avail the benefit of
protection against eviction under the WBPT
8
2025:CHC-AS:2091
Act, the tenant has to do the following to
avoid eviction, first, to deposit rent admitted
by him to be due; second, an application for
determination of rent payable be filed along
with. The tenant had neither deposited, nor
paid the admitted rent and had only filed the
application for determination of rent
belatedly along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
***
***
29. In addition, Section 7(1) and first part of sub-section (2) of Section 7 are comparable, both requiring deposit/pay admitted/undisputed amount of rent. However, Section 7(2) casts an additional obligation on the tenant to file an application for determination for rent along with such deposit within the specified time frame. The Legislature in its wisdom did not provide for any extension of time for payment or deposit under Section 7(1), making it clear that no such extension was intended in the corresponding part in Section 7(2). Since the deposit and application are to be made together by the tenant mandatorily within a specific time, in our considered view, extension of time as given in proviso to Section 7(2) is not applicable to either. Therefore, the proviso can only be construed to permit extension in payment of amount so specified in order of determination passed by the Civil Judge as envisaged in the latter part of sub-section (2) of Section 7. Stated differently, the word 'may' used in the proviso of Section 7(2) would only relate to extension of time, which is a discretion vested with the Civil Judge and it would not construe any other meaning. Moreover, it can be said that since in subsection (3) of Section 7, the consequence of non-compliance has been specified, therefore, use of the word 'shall' in Sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 7(2) is a mandatory compliance for the tenant, failing which, his defence against eviction shall be struck off.
*** ***
32. In the said context, if we see the intent of legislature as discussed and relying upon two cases of three-Judge Bench of this Court, we intend to explain that Section 7 of the WBPT Act prescribes when a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction. The opening word of sub-section (1) i.e., 'on a suit 9 2025:CHC-AS:2091 being instituted by the landlord for eviction' makes it clear that in case the tenant defaults in payment of rent and the suit is brought as specified in the WBPT Act, then on deposit/payment of admitted rent, an opportunity ought to be provided to get the benefit of protection against eviction. Therefore, for availing such benefit, some pre-requisites are there, which is of deposit of the rent, either disputed or undisputed as admitted, within the specified time. In case, the rent is disputed, the tenant has to mandatorily file an application, by virtue of word 'shall' used to such extent either in Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) or first part of Section 7(2). However, in the latter part of Section 7(2), which is for payment of amount on determination by the Civil Judge within the time as specified after compliance of the pre- deposit and on filing an application for determination within the specified time, such payment has to be made by the tenant within one month of date of order passed by Civil Judge. The proviso refers to extension of time with an intent to grant one more opportunity to the tenant after determination of rent for deposit.
33. At this juncture, we also deem it relevant to refer sub-section (3) of Section 7, wherein it is specified that if tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) within the time specified therein or within such extended time as may be granted by the Court, his defence against delivery of possession shall be struck out. So it deals with the following contingencies; first is of Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c), second is of former part of Section 7(2) and third is of latter part of Section 7(2) and in default of either of the situations, the Judge shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit specifying the consequences of failure to do any of the three situations. While using the word extended time in sub-section (3), the word shall has been used, therefore, this would also be referable to the provision which leads to the conclusion that in case the tenant fails to deposit the determined amount within the time specified or within the extended time. In that contingency the order of striking out of defence be passed and suit be proceeded for hearing. As explained from above discussion, we are constrained to say that the arguments as advanced by the 10 2025:CHC-AS:2091 learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment in Debasish Paul (supra) are not germane, hence repelled."
8. In the decision of Smt. Binika Thapa (nee Rai) & Anr. Vs. Smt. Damber Kumari Mukhia & Anr. decided in C.O. No. 64 of 2023. This court held as follows:-
15. "Section 7 was interpreted in Amit Kumar Chamariya (supra) and the entire mechanism by which a tenant could seek benefit from eviction on the ground of default, was considered to be mandatory and inter-related. The provisions of the said section were discussed in the following paragraphs thereof:-
"19. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act relieves the tenant from the ejectment on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent if he pays to the landlord or deposits it with the Civil Judge all arrears of rent, calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and up to the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum. Such payment or deposit shall be made within one month of the service of summons on the tenant or, where he appears in the suit without the summons being served upon him, within one month of his appearance.
20. Therefore, sub-section (1) deals with the payment of arrears of rent when there is no dispute about the rate of rent or the period of arrears of rent. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act comes into play if there is dispute as to the amount of rent including the period of arrears payable by the tenant. In that situation, the tenant is obliged to apply within time as specified in sub-section (1) that is within one month of the receipt of summons or within one month of appearance before the court to deposit with the Civil Judge the amount admitted by him to be due. The tenant is also required to file an application for determination of the rent payable. Such deposit is not to be accepted, unless it is accompanied by an application for determination of rent payable. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act requires two things, deposit 11 2025:CHC-AS:2091 of arrears of rent at the rate admitted to be due by the tenant along with an application for determination of the rent payable. If the two conditions are satisfied then only the court having regard to the rate at which rent was last paid and for which tenant is in default, may make an order specifying the amount due. After such a determination the tenant is granted one month's time to pay to the landlord the amount which was specified. The proviso of the Act, limits the discretion of the court to extend the time for deposit of arrears of rent. The extension can be provided once and not exceeding two months.
21. Sub-section (3) provides for consequences of non-payment of rent i.e. striking off the defence against the delivery of the possession and to proceed with the hearing of the suit. Such provision is materially different from sub- sections (2-A) and (2-B) which was being examined by this Court in B.P. Khemka [B.P. Khemka (P) Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick, (1987) 2 SCC 407] . Sub-sections (2-A) and (2-B) of Section 17 of the 1956 Act confer unfettered power on the court to extend the period of deposit of rent, which is circumscribed by the proviso to Section 7(2) and sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (2) are mandatory and required to be scrupulously followed by the tenant, if the tenant has to avoid the eviction on account of non-
payment of arrears of rent under Section 6 of the Act. There is an outer limit for extension of time to deposit of arrears of rent in terms of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. The consequences flowing from non-deposit of rent are contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, if the tenant fails to deposit admitted arrears of rent within one month of receipt of summons or within one month of appearance without summons and also fails to make an application for determination of the disputed amount of rate of rent and the period of arrears and the subsequent non- payment on determining of the arrears of rent, will entail the eviction of the tenant. Section 7 of the Act provides for a complete mechanism for avoiding eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, provided that the tenant takes steps as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act and deposits the arrears of rent on determination of the disputed amount. The deposit of rent along with an application for determination of dispute is a precondition to avoid eviction on the ground of non-payment of 12 2025:CHC-AS:2091 arrears of rent. In view thereof, tenant will not be able to take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act as it is not an application alone which is required to be filed by the tenant but the tenant has to deposit admitted arrears of rent as well."
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court took note of the decisions rendered in B.P. Khemka (P) Ltd. vs. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick reported in (1987) 2 SCC 407, Shibu Chandra Dhar vs. Pasupati Nath Auddya reported in (2002) 3 SCC 617 and Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal reported in (2003) 2 SCC 577, and arrived at the conclusion that the tenant would not be able to take recourse to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court noticed the decisions in the above cases and still arrived at the conclusion that filing of the applications and deposit/payment of the admitted arrears with statutory interest, within the aforementioned period, were both mandatory pre-conditions to be complied with by a tenant, in order to avoid eviction.
16. We proceed to discuss the ratio in Amit Kumar Chamariya (supra). On institution of a suit by the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds referred to in Section 6 of the said Act, the tenant, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2) of the Section 7, was liable to pay to the landlord or deposit with the civil judge all arrears of rent calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and upto the end of the month previous to that in which the payment was made, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Such payment or deposit was to be made within one month from the service of summons on the tenant or when the tenant appeared in the suit without summons being served, within one month from his appearance. Thereafter, the tenant was enjoined by law, to continue to pay to the landlord or deposit with the civil judge a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate, month by month within 15th of each succeeding month. In case of any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the tenant was liable to deposit with the civil judge, within the time specified in the sub-section, the amount admitted by him to be due from him together with an application for determination of the rent payable. No such deposit could be accepted unless it was accompanied by an application for determination of the rent payable. On receipt of the application, the civil judge, 13 2025:CHC-AS:2091 having regard to the rate at which the rent was last paid and the period for which default may have been made by the tenant, determine the dispute and pass an order within a period not exceeding one year, specifying the amount, if any, due from the tenant and thereupon the tenant was liable to pay to the landlord within one month from the date of such order, the amount so specified in the order along with the monthly rent at the rate so determined."
9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the learned trial Court rightly held as follows:-
"From bare reading of the two afore-mentioned provisions as well as thorough perusal of the Summons served through Registered Post as well as through Process Server, there is no doubt that both have been received on behalf of the defendant by his son "Sarwan Sharma" by putting his signature of the A.D. as well on the summon that has been received by him after understanding the meaning of the notice, as being reported by the process server. It seems that the summons have been received by the defendant's own family members or his relatives. Defendant in the garb of such misleading submission tried to coverup the lacuna that has already been created by his own insouciant conduct. Where there is no scope to go beyond the mandate of Section 7(1)(b), the deposit of the admitted arrear as well as the monthly rent by the defendant at his own risk cannot be taken to valid in view of the fact that the defendant has acted in clear contravention of directive laid down under Section 7 of the Act, when the date of service of summons was always well within the knowledge of the defendant. Petition under Section 7(2) can only be taken up for consideration after statutory obligation under Section 7(1) is discharged by the defendant. The present scenario does not disclose any such situation which would reflect that the defendant complied with the compulsory provision of law as laid down under Section 7(1)(b). Thus, in light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the plaintiff under Section 7(3) of the W.B.P.T. Act & reject the prayer of plaintiff to call for the record from Rent Control for the purpose of determination of actual rent under Section 7(2) as the same is non maintainable anymore since the prayer under Section 7(2) stands infructuous."14
2025:CHC-AS:2091
10. The Court does not find any irregularity in the order impugned. The learned Court has rightly struck off the defence. Section 7(3) of the said Act provides that if the tenant fails to deposit the amount as referred to in Section 7(1) or Section 7(2) within the time specified or within the extended time that may be granted, the defence against delivery of possession shall be struck off and the Court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will have the right to cross-examine the plaintiff and also demolish the case of the plaintiff through such cross-examination. He cannot set up his own case.
11. Accordingly, the civil revisional application along with the connected application is disposed of.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Parties are to act on the server copy of this order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)