Court sets aside trial court orders allowing a second Section 7 application after an earlier one was rejected as time-barred, holding the statutory deadline mandatory and not extendable under the Limitation Act.
The Calcutta High Court has held that joint tenants cannot circumvent the mandatory time limit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 by filing separate applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) after one tenant’s application has already been rejected as delayed.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, deciding a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, quashed orders passed by the Presidency Small Causes Court in an ejectment suit filed by landlord Sanjoy Paul against two defendants. The suit sought eviction on grounds including default in rent payment, unauthorised construction, change of user and reasonable requirement.
According to the record, summons had been issued to both defendants through court process and by speed post. The petitioner relied on postal tracking details to show that service had in fact been effected. However, the trial court had earlier rejected the Section 7 applications filed by defendant no. 1 as time-barred, while still directing fresh service on defendant no. 2. Later, defendant no. 2 filed fresh applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2), which were allowed by a subsequent order.
The High Court found this approach legally unsustainable. It held that once an application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) is rejected for delay, another joint tenant cannot file a fresh application on the same cause of action to bypass the statutory bar. The Court observed that the term “tenant” in the provision includes joint tenants, and the obligation to deposit arrears and seek determination of rent is a unified defence in such proceedings.
Justice Gupta further ruled that the 30-day period prescribed under Section 7 for depositing arrears of rent is mandatory. It cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act or the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that allowing belated applications in this manner would amount to gross abuse of process and would defeat the object of the tenancy statute.
Relying on earlier decisions, including Arsala Khan v. Land & Bricks & Entertainment Ltd., Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya, and Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, the Court reiterated that statutory timelines under the tenancy law must be strictly followed and cannot be enlarged through general procedural powers.
At the same time, the High Court preserved the portion of the trial court’s order directing fresh service on defendant no. 2, so that he may contest the suit in accordance with law if so advised. However, the impugned orders allowing the belated Section 7 applications were set aside.
The petition was accordingly allowed, and the High Court directed that the order be communicated to the trial court.
Bottom Line :
Applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 cannot be filed separately by joint tenants when a prior application by one tenant has been rejected for delay. The statutory period for depositing arrears of rent and seeking determination under Section 7 is mandatory and cannot be extended under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or inherent powers of the CPC.
Statutory provision(s): Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Sections 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order V Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sanjoy Paul v. Ayodhya Prasad, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2981420
