Smt. Isri Chowdhury & Ors. v. Ranger Realty Private Limited

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 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 6 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 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), 7 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 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 Therefore, for availing against eviction. 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 8 tenant 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 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 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 Under such circumstances, this Court does not interfere with the order impugned. The revisional application is dismissed without any order as to costs. 9 9 With the dismissal of Section 7(2), the consequences provided under Section 7(3) followed and the Court has rightly recorded thus. 10 Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)