The Calcutta High Court held that depositing rent with the Rent Controller instead of the Civil Judge or landlord after institution of an eviction suit amounts to a technical, not willful, default and does not justify striking off the tenant’s defence under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: In a legal development, the Calcutta High Court has clarified the scope of Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act). The Court ruled that depositing rent with the Rent Controller instead of the Civil Judge or landlord, after the initiation of an ejectment suit, constitutes a technical default, not a real default.
This landmark decision has major implications for tenants facing eviction under the WBPT Act, as it establishes that irregular deposit of rent cannot automatically lead to striking off the tenant’s defense.
Case Background
The present case involves Ejectment Suit No. 62 of 2011, filed by the landlord, Prantosh Kumar Saha, against the tenant, Tarak Nath Banerjee.
The tenant deposited rent with the Rent Controller while the suit was pending. The trial court, however, held that such deposits were invalid and consequently struck off the tenant’s defense under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act.
The tenant challenged this order through a revisional application (CO 141 of 2022).
Legal Issue
Whether a tenant’s defense can be struck off under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act for depositing rent with the Rent Controller instead of the Civil Judge or the landlord, especially after the 2006 amendment of Section 7(1)(a).
What the Trial Court Held
The trial court took the view that under Section 7(1)(c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, a tenant is required to either pay rent directly to the landlord or deposit the same month by month with the Civil Judge within the prescribed time.
The court observed that the deposit of rent with the Rent Controller, after the institution of the ejectment suit, was not in conformity with the statutory mandate. Holding that such deposits could not be treated as valid compliance with Section 7(1), the trial court concluded that the tenant had failed to comply with the requirements of the Act.
On this basis, the court treated the tenant as being in default and proceeded to strike out the defence against delivery of possession under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act.
ALSO READ: Legal Help | Landlord Won’t Return Your Security Deposit? DO THIS (All Laws Explained)
Arguments Presented
Tenant’s Argument
The tenant argued that:
- There was no real default.
- Rent was deposited regularly.
- The deposit was made in the wrong forum, not with malicious intent.
- Such irregularity should not lead to striking off the defense.
Landlord’s Argument
The landlord argued that:
- The 2006 amendment removed the option of depositing rent with the Rent Controller.
- Hence, all deposits made with the Controller are invalid.
- Such invalid deposits are not permitted under the Act.
- Therefore, the tenant’s defense should be struck off.
Calcutta High Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court judgment relied upon:
1. Monoj Lal Seal vs. Octavious Tea & Industries Ltd.
The Supreme Court recognized that depositing rent with the Rent Controller instead of the Civil Judge is a default. However, the Court allowed the tenant to prove whether such a default was bona fide.
2. Madhabi Mukherjee vs. Dipali Mitra
This case clarified that invalid deposits cannot be regularised. But striking off the defense for a technical default is not justified.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that there was no willful default on the part of the tenant, as the rent had been deposited regularly, though before a wrong forum. The Court observed that such deposits amounted to an irregular or technical default rather than a real or substantive default.
It was further held that Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, could not be invoked to strike out the tenant’s defence in cases where there was no non-payment of rent but merely an erroneous deposit before the wrong authority.
The Court observed that,
“The deposit made by the petitioner is actually a default in technical sense and not a default in real sense as it is a case of irregular deposit and not a non-deposit of rent.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Tenant Can Never Become Owner of Rented Property
The High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed:
- The trial court must recalculate arrear rent, considering deposits made with the Rent Controller.
- Any outstanding balance must be deposited with the Civil Judge or the landlord.
- The application under Section 7(3) must be heard afresh, treating the irregular deposit as a technical default.
Case Title:
Tarak Nath Banerjee Vs Prantosh Kumar Saha
CO 141 of 2022
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Rent Laws