The Calcutta High Court has held that where joint tenants occupy the same premises and share a common tenancy, one tenant cannot file a fresh application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 after an earlier application by another joint tenant has already been rejected as time-barred. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that the obligation under Section 7 constitutes a unified defence available to the tenants and that the mandatory statutory period cannot be bypassed through separate applications by different joint tenants.
The High Court consequently set aside the orders passed by the Presidency Small Causes Court which had allowed a later Section 7 application filed by the second defendant, while preserving the direction for fresh service of notice on that defendant so that she could contest the eviction suit in accordance with law.
Background
The case arose from an ejectment suit filed by the petitioner before the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta seeking eviction of the defendants on grounds including default, unauthorised construction, change of user and reasonable requirement.
Summons were issued to both defendants through the court bailiff and by Speed Post with acknowledgement due on March 25, 2025. According to the petitioner, postal tracking showed that summons on defendant no. 1 had been received by his daughter-in-law, Moumita, on March 26, 2025. The article sent to defendant no. 2 was also delivered to the same person but was later returned with the endorsement “addressee left without instruction.”
By an order dated April 29, 2025, the Chief Judge rejected applications filed by defendant no. 1 under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act as time-barred. However, the court directed fresh steps for service upon defendant no. 2.
Defendant no. 2 subsequently filed fresh applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) on June 9, 2025. Those applications were allowed by the 3rd Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, through an order dated September 11, 2025.
The plaintiff approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the relevant portions of both orders.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that once the Section 7 applications filed by one joint tenant had been rejected for being beyond the prescribed statutory period, another tenant could not revive the same defence by filing identical applications later.
It was contended that allowing such applications would permit the statutory time limit to be circumvented. The petitioner also argued that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked to override an express statutory bar contained in the tenancy law.
Reliance was placed on, among other authorities, Uma Beriwal and Others v. Sree Shree Iswar Annapurna Mata & Others, Jayanti Dam and Others v. Aurobinda Pyne, Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed and Others, and Vishwabandhu v. Sri Krishna and Another.
Opposite Party’s Stand
Opposite party no. 2 defended the trial court’s order, arguing that fresh summons had been directed to be served upon her by the court itself and that she had filed her Section 7 applications within the stipulated period after receiving that summons.
It was also submitted that the petitioner had not challenged the April 29, 2025 order directing fresh service upon defendant no. 2 and, therefore, the later order allowing her applications did not warrant interference.
High Court Examines Nature of Joint Tenancy Defence
The High Court noted from the record that defendants no. 1 and 2 were joint tenants under the same rent receipt. It therefore considered whether different joint tenants could file separate applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) when the facts, premises and defence were identical and an earlier application under the same provisions had already been rejected.
Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act requires a tenant facing an eviction suit to deposit arrears of rent, along with interest, within one month of service of summons or within one month of appearance where summons has not been served. Where there is a dispute regarding the amount payable, the admitted amount must be deposited along with an application seeking determination of rent.
The Court observed:
“The term ‘tenant’ in the section refers to tenant/joint tenant as both deposit a combined rent for the tenanted premises.”
It further held that once applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) filed by one tenant had been rejected, a second or separate application by another joint tenant could not be entertained.
Statutory 30-Day Period Is Mandatory
The High Court held that the 30-day period prescribed for depositing arrears and complying with Section 7 is mandatory. It said the period cannot be extended by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act or the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC.
The Court further explained that the obligation under Section 7 is a unified defence available to defendants sued as tenants or legal representatives.
“The defence available to the remaining co-tenants/defendants would equally stand affected, since the obligation under Section 7 is a unified defence, wherein non-compliance by one cannot be dissociated from the liability of the others.”
The Court noted that non-compliance could result in the defence against delivery of possession being struck out under Section 7(3).
Earlier Supreme Court and High Court Rulings Considered
The High Court agreed with the earlier trial court observation based on Arsala Khan v. Land & Bricks & Entertainment Ltd. that Section 7 of the 1997 Act does not permit a tenant to rely on the Limitation Act to deposit rent beyond the prescribed period.
It also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya, which held that simultaneous deposit of admitted rent along with an application for determination is a pre-condition and that the Limitation Act cannot assist a delayed deposit.
The judgment further noted Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, which reaffirmed Bijay Kumar Singh and clarified that where the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act prescribes a shorter limitation period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot enlarge it.
Trial Court Exceeded Jurisdiction
The High Court concluded that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing defendant no. 2’s Section 7 application after the earlier application filed by another joint tenant had already been rejected.
It held:
“The Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by bypassing the mandatory provisions of the Act in allowing the application under Section 7 filed by defendant no. 2, another tenant, after one such application had already been rejected.”
The Court described the order as involving gross perversity and palpable illegality and held that it was liable to be set aside.
Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision and set aside the April 29, 2025 and September 11, 2025 orders passed in Ejectment Suit No. 60 of 2025, except the portion directing fresh service of notice upon defendant no. 2.
The Court clarified that defendant no. 2 could still contest the eviction suit in accordance with law, if so advised. Any interim order was also vacated.
Case Details
Case Title: Sanjoy Paul v. Ayodhya Prasad and Anr.
Case No.: C.O. No. 4196 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Date: September 18, 2026
