Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar, delivered its judgment on 13th August 2025, dismissing an appeal filed by a tenant. The Court held that the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, is subject to the specific provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and that the tenant’s failure to deposit the admitted arrears of rent within the statutory period of thirty days as mandated under Section 7 of the Act disentitled him from seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court upheld the orders of the Small Causes Court and the High Court, which had rejected the tenant’s applications. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The dispute arose from a tenancy relating to Flat No. 8, First Floor, 44 Elliot Road, Kolkata, West Bengal. The appellant was a tenant in the premises, while the respondents were the landlords. The monthly rent was admitted at Rs. 1090. The landlords instituted an ejectment suit on 11th June 2019 on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need, and sub-letting. Upon issuance of notice, summons were served on the tenant on 29th September 2022. From 30th September 2022 to 27th October 2022, the Courts in Kolkata were closed for the Durga Puja vacation. On reopening, the tenant filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on 14th November 2022, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 17 days.

Also Read: Premium Whisky Consumers Won’t Confuse Blenders Pride With London Pride | Pernod Ricard Plea Rejected | Supreme Court Dismisses Pernod Ricard Appeal

In the application under Section 7(1), the tenant sought permission to deposit the current rent for November 2022 at the rate of Rs. 1090 per month. In the application under Section 7(2), the tenant prayed for determination of any default period and refund of excess rent allegedly paid. The tenant contended that he had paid a total sum of Rs. 2,80,500 through cheques to the landlord’s son-in-law and that the payment exceeded the amount claimed by the landlord. Accordingly, he sought consideration of the applications on merits.

The Small Causes Court rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, holding that the thirty-day period under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act could not be extended. The High Court of Calcutta confirmed this order in revision. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The tenant’s counsel argued that since excess payment of rent had been made, the applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) deserved to be considered on merits. It was submitted that the proviso to Section 7(2) allowing extension of time up to two months must be read as applicable to Section 7(1) also. Reliance was placed on Debasish Paul and Another v. Amal Boral (2024) 2 SCC 169. It was contended that the High Court’s reliance on Bijay Kumar Singh and Others v. Amit Kumar Chamariya and Another (2019) 10 SCC 660 was misplaced, as that case did not deal with the specific issue raised.

The respondents opposed the appeal, contending that the tenant failed to comply with the statutory mandate of depositing rent within thirty days. Reliance was placed on Bijay Kumar Singh to argue that deposit of admitted rent was a precondition to seeking determination under Section 7(2). The amicus curiae appointed by the Court, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, submitted that either the proviso to Section 7(2) applies to both subsections (1) and (2), or in the alternative, is confined to subsection (2) alone.

The Supreme Court framed the question for consideration as whether the tenant’s applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2), filed after expiry of thirty days along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, were entertainable.

The Court carefully examined Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It recorded: “As mandated by Section 7(1)(b), the said payment or deposit shall be made within one month from the date of service of the summons on tenant or from the date of appearance in case the tenant appears without service of summons.” It further observed that Section 7(2) required deposit of admitted rent “together with an application for determination of the rent payable.” The Court interpreted the term “together” to mean that deposit and application must be filed simultaneously within the statutory period.

On the effect of the proviso appended to Section 7(2), the Court stated: “Thus, the proviso appended therein would apply only to a case where the amount specified in the order after determination was not paid within the period as specified therein.” It concluded that the proviso did not extend to initial deposits under Section 7(1) or the first part of Section 7(2).

The Court relied on its earlier decisions in Bijay Kumar Singh and Debasish Paul. Quoting from Bijay Kumar Singh, the Court reiterated: “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.” Similarly, in Debasish Paul, the Court had stated: “If there is a lesser time period specified as limitation in the said Act, then the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be used to expand the same.”

Addressing the mandatory or directory nature of the provisions, the Court recorded: “In view of the plain reading of the provisions specified in Sections 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and 7(2) and also the proviso thereto, it is clear that for the purpose of payment or deposit of the arrears of rent or rent admitted to be due within the time as specified and also for filing of the application, the word ‘shall’ has been used.” The Court contrasted this with the use of “may” in the proviso relating to extension of time after determination, which it held to be discretionary.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the tenant’s failure to file applications with the admitted rent deposit within thirty days was fatal. The Court recorded: “Therefore, due to non-compliance of deposit and filing of an application within the prescribed period of 30 days, the consequence as specified in sub-section (3) of Section 7 shall follow.”

The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on certain paragraphs of Debasish Paul, noting that those observations were not germane to the present facts. It stated that under Section 40 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the Limitation Act applied only subject to the provisions of the Tenancy Act itself.

Also Read: J&K High Court On Locus Standi | Relaxed Rules In Public Interest Cannot Reopen Concluded Litigation | 7% Deviation Termed Minor And Regularized | Petition Dismissed As Abuse Of Process

The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal had no merit. It recorded: “As concluded above, the applicability of Limitation Act is subject to provisions of the WBPT Act. Meaning thereby, if the time limit has been prescribed to do some act it cannot be extended by aid of proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 7. As such, the inescapable conclusion in the facts and the law as discussed hereinabove, is that the compliance as required to be done by the tenant in Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and first part of Section 7(2) regarding deposit of rent and filing an application within the same time is mandatory. In default, they cannot avail the benefit of the proviso of sub-section (2).”

The Court thus dismissed the appeal, holding: “Accordingly, and in view of the above discussions, the present appeal of the tenant fails and is dismissed while maintaining the order passed by the learned Small Causes Court and the High Court in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Case Title: Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 984

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10900 of 2024)

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Aravind Kumar