The Calcutta High Court has held that a tenant’s deposit of rent with the Rent Controller instead of the Civil Judge, following the institution of an ejectment suit, constitutes a “technical default” rather than a real default. The Court ruled that such an irregularity does not warrant striking out the tenant’s defence against delivery of possession under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a tenant’s defence could be struck out under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act), for depositing rent with the Rent Controller instead of the Civil Judge or the landlord, as required by the amended provisions of the Act.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) set aside the trial court’s order which had struck out the tenant’s defence, observing that the deposits made, though before a “wrong forum,” indicated that there was no “willful default.”
Background of the Case
The revisional application (CO 141 of 2022) was filed by the petitioner, Tarak Nath Banerjee, challenging an order dated December 10, 2021, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas, in Ejectment Suit No. 62 of 2011.
The trial court had allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/opposite party, Prantosh Kumar Saha, under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act. In the impugned order, the trial court observed that while an earlier application under Section 7(2) had been disposed of in 2014 with a finding of no arrears, the tenant was obligated under Section 7(1)(c) to continue paying rent to the landlord or deposit it with the Civil Judge.
The trial court noted: “The defendant has filed Challans to show that he has been paying amount equivalent to rent but it is surprising to see that the defendant has been depositing the same before the Ld. Rent Controller and not this Court, or directly to the landlord.” Consequently, the trial court held these were not valid deposits and struck out the defence against delivery of possession.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner/tenant argued that there was “admittedly no default” on his part regarding the payment of rent, but rather an “irregular deposit” before the Rent Controller. It was submitted that since September 2022, the tenant had been depositing rent with the learned court officer. The petitioner contended that the defence could not be struck off due to such irregular deposits, as there was no willful default.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Monoj Lal Seal & Ors. vs. Octavious Tea and Industries Limited (2015) and the Calcutta High Court judgment in Madhabi Mukherjee vs. Dipali Mitra (2012).
Conversely, the opposite party/landlord argued that after the 2006 amendment to the WBPT Act, which came into effect on June 1, 2006, the forum for depositing rent with the Controller was deleted for pending suits. The landlord contended that “the deposit made before the Rent Controller are all invalid deposits” as the tenant was required to pay the landlord directly or deposit the rent with the Court. The landlord also relied on the Madhabi Mukherjee judgment and a Coordinate Bench decision in Kaluram Sarda Grandsons & Ors. vs. Mayadevi Gupta.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined the judgments cited by both parties. Justice Dutt (Paul) referred extensively to the decision in Madhabi Mukherjee vs. Dipali Mitra. The Court noted that while Madhabi Mukherjee acknowledged that deposits with the Controller after the amendment were “invalid” and could not be “regularised,” it simultaneously held that striking out the defence for such “technical defaults” was not justified.
Quoting the relevant portion from Madhabi Mukherjee, the Court observed: “Thus, this is the case where this Court finds that the default which the tenant committed in depositing rent for the said period is really a default in technical sense and not a default in real sense, as it is really a case of irregular deposit and not a case of non-deposit of rent.”
Regarding the landlord’s reliance on the Coordinate Bench judgment in Kaluram Sarda Grandsons, the High Court held that the facts and circumstances of that case were not similar to the present one.
The Court observed: “It thus appears that there is no prima facie default on the part of the petitioner as payment has been made but before a wrong forum.”
Decision The High Court allowed the revisional application and set aside the order dated December 10, 2021. The Court directed the trial court to:
- Calculate any outstanding arrear rent to be paid by the defendant.
- Take into consideration the amount already deposited with the Rent Controller.
- Direct the payment of any balance amount as per the law.
The Court held 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.”
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) further directed the trial court to hear the application under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act afresh “on considering the rent deposited with the Rent Controller as a mere irregularity and not an illegality.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Tarak Nath Banerjee Vs Prantosh Kumar Saha
- Case Number: CO 141 of 2022
- Coram: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Prantick Ghosh, Ms. Poulomi Saha, Ms. Shravani Ghosh
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Mr. Tarak Nath Halder
