AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-
An order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 3rd Court at Howrah, dated July 17, 2025, passed in Title Suit No. 1351 of 2018, has been assailed in the instant revision.
Let it be mentioned here that vide an order dated July 28, 2022, the Court has decided the petitioner’s application under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and found the present petitioner/tenant to be a defaulter for the months of December 2017, April 2019 and July 2022.
As regards months April 2019 and July 2022, the petitioner/tenant has to submit that in spite of deposit of rent by him for those months, there has been a wrong finding of the Court, as regards the same, in the said order dated July 28, 2022, in so far as, the receipts being misplaced in the office, those could not have been produced by the petitioner/tenant, before the Court for consideration, at the relevant point of time.
Thus, the petitioner/tenant filed his application (undated) “for modification or review of the order dated 28/07/2022”. There, he has contended as to how, in spite of deposit of rent but due to loss of the rent receipts, the fact of deposit of rent could not be presented before the Court. In the said application, the petitioner/tenant has prayed for the relief that in review of the Trial Court’s order dated July 28, 2022, the said Court may revisit the petitioner’s application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and consider due deposit of rent by the petitioner for the months of April, 2019 and July, 2022.
Mr. S. Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the learned Trial Court has proceeded illegally and without jurisdiction, in passing the impugned order dated July 17, 2025. He submits firstly, that in an application by the petitioner filed for review of the Court’s order dated July 28, 2022 passed under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the Court had erroneously gone into the question to find the effect of amendment of plaint allowed in the case. This has been an extraneous consideration by the learned Trial Court in this occasion, he says. He has further stated that the learned Trial Court has erroneously considered that the petitioner stands as a defaulter in respect of the month of July, 2022, whereas the petitioner has specific corroborating document to show due submission of rent for the said month by him before the appropriate authority. Lastly, it has been submitted that since in the order dated July 28, 2022 the Court directed considering the petitioner as a defaulter for the months of December, 2017, April, 2019 and July, 2022, consequently the said direction of the Court in its entirety has to be recalled for the interest of justice, in order to provide an opportunity to the bona fide petitioner/defendant/tenant, to submit relevant corroborating documents, showing payment of rent by the said petitioner.
Learned advocate, Mr. Debjit Mukherjee has appeared for the opposite party/plaintiff/landlord. He has submitted that the instant revisional application is only a dilatory tactics exercised by the present petitioner whereas the petitioner could not have raised any objection as regards the impugned order dated July 17, 2025, relating to its legality or propriety. It is submitted that a defaulter even for one month cannot escape the scrutiny and liability under provisions of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate after referring the impugned order dated July 17, 2025 in detail, has submitted that even if the contention of the petitioner be taken at its face value, that the petitioner has duly submitted rent for the months of April, 2019 and July, 2022, still there is default on his part in payment of rent for the month of December, 2017.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate has indicated that the fact that the petitioner has been a defaulter with respect to rent of December, 2017 is an undisputed admitted fact in the instant case. Therefore, in consideration of the provisions and strict applications thereof under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the petitioner tenant cannot be given access to defend the suit, even on the sole reason of being defaulter for one month that is, December, 2017. In this way, Mr. Mukherjee learned advocate has submitted, that the impugned order of the learned Trial Court suffers with no illegality or impropriety at all, to warrant interference of this Court in the instant revisional application.
Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 has provided for measures of protection available to the tenant against eviction. Relevant provision thereof may be quoted as hereinbelow: -
“7. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction.
(1)(a)On a [suit] [Word substituted for the word 'proceeding' by W.B. Act 12 of 2006.] 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] [Words 'or the Civil Judge' first inserted by W.B. Act 6 of 2005, then, the words within third brackets substituted for the words 'the Controller or the Civil Judge' by W.B. Act 12 of 2006.] 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.
(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] [Words substituted for the word 'proceeding' by W.B. Act 12 of 2006.] 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] [Words 'or the Civil Judge' first inserted by W.B. Act 6 of 2005, then, the words within third brackets substituted for the words 'the Controller or the Civil Judge' by W.B. Act 12 of 2006.] month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.(2)If in any [suit] [Words substituted for the word 'proceeding' by W.B. Act 12 of 2006.] 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 sub-section, deposit with [the Civil Judge] [Words 'or the Civil Judge' first inserted by W.B. Act 6 of 2005, then, the words within third brackets substituted for the words 'the Controller or the Civil Judge' by W.B. Act 12 of 2006.] 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] [Words 'or the Civil Judge' first inserted by W.B. Act 6 of 2005, then, the words within third brackets substituted for the words 'the Controller or the Civil Judge' by W.B. Act 12 of 2006.] 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] [Words 'or the Civil Judge' first inserted by W.B. Act 6 of 2005, then, the words within third brackets substituted for the words 'the Controller or the Civil Judge' by W.B. Act 12 of 2006.] only once and the period of such extension shall not exceed two months ** ** ** ** ** ** …”
The learned Trial Court has disposed of the petitioner’s application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 vide its order dated July 28, 2022, upon finding therein that the petitioner has defaulted to pay rent for the three months, that is, December, 2017, April, 2019 and July, 2022. The Court, therefore, directed the present petitioner to pay the arrear rent along with 10 per cent interest, totaling to Rs. 2636.7/-, rounded off to Rs. 2637/-, within 15 days from the date of that order.
According to the petitioner, he has submitted rents as per direction of the Court for the months of April, 2019 and July, 2022. So far as rent for the month of December, 2017 is concerned, it is an undisputed and admitted fact in the instant case that the same has not yet been remitted by way of deposit by the petitioner, in terms of the Court’s order as above.
Though no supporting document has been produced before the learned Trial Court showing payment of rent by the petitioner for the months of April, 2019 and July, 2022, the petitioner however, claims that receipts thereof are now available, which have been untraceable earlier. Thus, the petitioner says that the order of the Court dated July 28, 2022 is required to be reviewed as a whole granting him opportunity to furnish the relevant money receipts.
On careful perusal of the statutory provision, it appears to be very specific and mandatory in nature, that any amount of rent due from the tenant is to be directed for remittance to the landlord, positively within one month from the date of such order [as per Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997]. Extension of time can be granted by the Civil Judge as per proviso thereof only once and for a maximum period of two months.
The petitioner, however, does not seem to have prayed for extension of time for remittance of due rent. His case is that rent has been duly paid but the fact has remained beyond consideration of the learned Trial Court.
In view of the discussion as made above, such claim of the petitioner is found to be baseless and unfounded as there is no dispute or denial by the petitioner as regards the Court’s finding about his default in payment of rent for the month of December, 2017. The binding and mandatory nature of the provision of the statute as mentioned above prompts this Court to find that there is no escape for a tenant from the legal and statutory consequences, due to non-compliance of the Court’s order passed under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 even if the amount of rent is due for one month only. In this regard, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that since a single order of the Court dated July 28, 2022 has held about alleged default of the petitioner for three months and the Court has calculated the alleged due amount of rent for three months together, the entire order as above should stand as recalled in view of evidence of payment of rent for only the months of April, 2019 and July, 2022.
Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 has provided for the Civil Judge to consider the period for which default may have been made by the tenant and then specify the amount “if any”, stands due from him. Thus, the statutory exercise is capable of being month-specific and amount-specific. Even if there is an erroneous inclusion of two months alleged default, that will not necessarily destroy the adjudication concerning the remaining month. In Ashok Tripathy versus Tapan Kumar Adhya & Ors. [C.O. 1031 of 2025 dated March 28, 2025], this Court has reiterated that purpose of Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 is to adjudicate the dispute regarding the amount of rent payable and after determination to specify the amount due from the tenant. The tenant cannot, therefore, convert a partial error, if any, into an entitlement to annulment of the order passed under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, as a whole.
Assuming that the Trial Court has committed an error in treating two months as unpaid, the said error is severable from the finding concerning the third month. The tenant cannot enforce setting aside of the entire order merely because part of the computation is disputed, when he himself admits that a particular month’s rent was in fact unpaid. This would amount to converting the partial factual error (if at all), into a total nullification of the adjudication. The scheme of the Act does not support and justify the same.
Thus, having found the provision under statute to be a mandatory and unavoidable one and having found the present petitioner to have flouted the order of the Court dated July 28, 2022 in respect of month of December, 2017, this Court cannot find any illegality or material irregularity in the order of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah, dated July 17, 2025, as impugned in this case.
Hence, the instant civil revision is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
On the above premise, the instant civil revision application No. CO 3688 of 2025 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.