Joint Tenants Cannot File Successive Applications Under Section 7(1) & 7(2) Of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act Once Initial Plea Is Rejected: Calcutta High Court

"Once the applications under sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act are filed beyond the stipulated time by one of the tenants and rejected on the ground of delay, the same cannot be allowed to be subsequently filed by another tenant bypassing the statutory provision of the said Act." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated 18 September 2026, held that joint tenants in an eviction suit cannot circumvent the mandatory time limits of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, by filing successive, individual applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) after an initial application has been rejected on the grounds of limitation.

A bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that the obligation to deposit arrears of rent constitutes a "unified defence" for all tenants sued in an eviction proceeding, and the rejection of such an application for one tenant precludes others from reviving the same cause of action.

The petitioner filed an Ejectment Suit against two joint tenants for eviction on grounds including default and unauthorized construction. While the trial court initially rejected the Section 7(1) and 7(2) applications filed by the first defendant as time-barred, it subsequently permitted the second defendant to file fresh applications long after the statutory one-month period had expired. The petitioner challenged this allowance, contending that the second defendant was attempting to abuse the process of law to bypass the mandatory limitation period.

The primary question before the court was whether multiple joint tenants in a single eviction suit are entitled to file separate, sequential applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the WBPT Act, 1997, after a similar application by a co-tenant has already been dismissed. The court was also tasked with determining whether a trial court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to enlarge the statutory limitation period prescribed for depositing arrears of rent.

Unified Nature of Statutory Defence

The court emphasized that the term "tenant" within Section 7 of the Act encompasses joint tenants, as they share a singular obligation regarding the tenanted premises. Once a suit for eviction is instituted, the statutory requirement to deposit arrears of rent within one month of the service of summons is a mandatory obligation. The court noted that because the rent is paid collectively for the premises, the defence under Section 7 is inherently unified; therefore, non-compliance by one tenant effectively invalidates the protection for the collective.

Section 7 Obligations are Mandatory

The bench clarified that Section 7(3) of the Act stipulates that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay the required amount within the specified time, the court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out. The court reiterated that this provision leaves no room for the invocation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to extend the period. Any attempt to interpret the statute otherwise would render the mandatory legislative intent nugatory.

Strict Limitation Period Under WBPT Act

The court drew heavily from the Supreme Court’s decision in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya, affirming that the simultaneous deposit of admitted rent with an application for determination is a strict precondition for protection. The bench observed that the trial court committed a palpable illegality and exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the second defendant to file a fresh application after the first was rejected. Such an action not only violates the spirit of the 1997 Act but also encourages the abuse of judicial process.

Bold pull-quote on Statutory Compliance

"Once an eviction summons is served on a tenant, the statutory 30-day period for depositing arrears of rent along with applicable interest is mandatory and cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act or inherent powers conferred under Section 151 of the CPC."

The High Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the trial court, holding that the second defendant's belated application was unsustainable in law. However, the court maintained the direction for fresh service of notice upon the second defendant to ensure they may still contest the suit on merits, provided they do not seek to re-litigate the statutory protection under Section 7. The court concluded that the trial court must now proceed with the suit, treating the defence under Section 7 as struck out due to the failure to comply with the mandatory timelines.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2026