Failure To Comply With Mandatory Rent Deposit Directions Under WBPTA Will Invite Striking Off of Tenant’s Defence, Even For Single Default: Calcutta High Court

"There is an outer limit for extension of time... tenant must scrupulously follow Section 7(2) if eviction is to be avoided" –  Calcutta High Court dismissed a tenant’s challenge to an order striking off her defence under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, for non-compliance with a court order directing deposit of arrears and current rent. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, sitting in revisional jurisdiction, held that the statutory obligations under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act are "mandatory" and “require strict compliance,” reaffirming the principle that even a single default invites the consequence of defence being struck off.

The judgment underscores the High Court’s consistent position that compliance with orders under the WBPTA is not subject to equitable indulgence and that the tenant’s failure to strictly adhere to timelines — including failure to apply for extension of time — cannot be condoned.

Deposit Made in Name of Deceased Landlord Cannot Be Valid: “Willful and Negligent Default” Established

The controversy in the case arose from a long-standing landlord-tenant dispute where the landlords (respondents) had filed Ejectment Suit No. 58 of 2022 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises. Upon service of summons, the tenant (petitioner Nisha Shah) filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

In an earlier order dated August 17, 2023, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore, had directed the tenant to deposit arrears amounting to ₹1,24,150/- (covering gaps from 2011, 2012, and 2023), as well as current rent from September 2023 onward. The arrears included rent allegedly deposited before the Rent Controller from March 2017 to November 2022 — but in the name of the deceased original landlord. The court ordered such sums to be withdrawn and redeposited in the plaintiff's name within one month.

However, the tenant failed to deposit the arrears within the stipulated one-month period and also failed to file an application seeking extension within that same period. Only on October 7, 2023, she deposited rent for May to July 2012, well beyond the deadline. The trial court, upon the landlords’ application under Section 7(3), struck off the defence, leading to the present revisional challenge.

“Provisions of Section 7 are mandatory… liberal construction impermissible”: Court rejects plea for indulgence

Justice Mukherjee emphatically held that the statutory framework under Section 7 allows a tenant only one opportunity to seek extension — and that too, strictly within the initial period fixed by the court. Relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative judgment in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya, (2019) 10 SCC 660, the High Court reaffirmed:

“The provisions of sub-section (2) are mandatory and required to be scrupulously followed by the tenant… There is an outer limit for extension of time… Non-deposit of arrears entails eviction.”

The Court rejected the tenant’s plea that she was not advised to file a timely extension application and her reliance on liberal interpretation of the statute:

“The context of the instant case is different… the petitioner has defaulted on multiple counts… and statutory compliance cannot be made contingent upon advice of counsel.”

Further, the Court observed that payment of current rent was also delayed — the November 2023 rent was deposited only in January 2024 — another default independently attracting consequences under Section 7(3).

No Legal Protection for Deposits Made in Name of Dead Landlord Without Proof

One of the tenant’s primary defences was that she had made deposits for 69 months before the Rent Controller, albeit in the name of the deceased landlord. However, Justice Mukherjee found no merit in this argument:

“Even if it is assumed that any such deposit is made, it is in the name of a deceased person. The Rent Controller, in response to RTI, confirmed that no such records are available… Thus, it cannot be treated as a valid deposit.”

Invoking Section 22(2) of the WBPTA, the Court held the tenant’s actions to be “willful and negligent,” and emphasized that such invalid deposits cannot be cured later. The tenant was directed in the earlier order to withdraw and redeposit such amounts before the Court, but no such step was taken.

“Even assuming non-cooperation by the Controller, the tenant could have deposited the rent afresh under protest to comply with the court’s direction… She did not. Therefore, the default is deliberate.”

Tenant Failed To Exercise Statutory Remedies Under Sections 21 & 32 Against Non-Issuance Of Rent Receipt

The tenant had also contended that rent for September and October 2011 was paid, but the landlord failed to issue a receipt. However, the High Court noted that the tenant took no steps under Section 21 or Section 32 of the Act — which provide specific remedies for such grievances:

“It is not the case of the tenant that he had taken any such measure… therefore, she cannot rely on such plea to avoid consequences under Section 7.”

Thus, the tenant’s failure to avail statutory protection within the permitted time barred her from raising such defences at a later stage.

Single Default Is Sufficient To Attract Section 7(3): Cumulative Defaults Leave No Scope For Interference

Justice Mukherjee held that the record established not one but multiple, successive defaults:

• Non-payment for Sept-Oct 2011 within one month of summons

• Delayed deposit of May-July 2012 rent beyond the deadline

• No valid deposit for 69 months from 2017–2022

• Late payment of current rent for November 2023

Quoting Golam v. Hazi, 62 CWN 858 and Bina Devi Binay v. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, the Court reiterated:

“Even a single violation in deposit attracts Section 7(3)… Extension can be granted only once and only if application is made within the original period.”

High Court Declines Interference Under Article 227: No Perversity, Illegality, or Jurisdictional Error

Dismissing the revisional application, Justice Mukherjee made it clear that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not meant for routine correction of well-reasoned trial court orders:

“Trial court has arrived at a conclusion assigning reasons… it has not committed any grave injustice nor exceeded its jurisdiction… If supervisory jurisdiction is used where not proper, it becomes counterproductive.”

This decision underscores a strict and no-nonsense judicial interpretation of the WBPTA’s rent deposit regime, warning tenants that even a single lapse — without timely action under Section 7(2) or invocation of remedies under Sections 21 or 32 — can cost them the right to defend possession. Courts will not entertain excuses grounded in inadvertence, advice failures, or equitable pleas.

The ruling also reinforces the non-negotiable nature of procedural compliance in tenancy disputes and affirms that statutory safeguards must be activated within the prescribed framework — not outside it.

Date of Decision: January 27, 2026