An admitted single-month rent default defeats a tenant’s challenge to the entire Section 7(2) determination.

The petitioner-tenant challenged the order dated 17 July 2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah, in Title Suit No. 1351 of 2018.

By an earlier order dated 28 July 2022 under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the Trial Court found the tenant in default for December 2017, April 2019 and July 2022 and directed payment of arrears with 10% interest, amounting to Rs. 2,637, within 15 days.

The tenant subsequently sought modification or review, asserting that rent for April 2019 and July 2022 had been paid but the relevant receipts had earlier been misplaced and were unavailable before the Trial Court.

He admitted that rent for December 2017 remained unpaid.

The Trial Court rejected the tenant’s contention, leading to the present revision.

1. Whether the tenant could obtain review or modification of the Section 7(2) order on the basis of subsequently available rent receipts relating to April 2019 and July 2022, so as to reopen the entire determination of default.

2. Whether an admitted default for a single month—December 2017—was sufficient to attract the statutory consequences of non-compliance with an order under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

3. Whether a possible error in determining default for two months rendered the entire Section 7(2) order invalid or liable to be recalled.

The Court applied Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, under which, where there is a dispute regarding the rent payable, the tenant must deposit the admitted amount and the Civil Judge must determine and specify the amount, if any, due; the amount so specified must ordinarily be paid within one month of the order, with extension permissible only once and for a maximum period of two months.

The provision was treated as mandatory, and non-compliance attracts the statutory consequences even where the unpaid rent relates to only one month.

The Court also applied the principle that a determination under Section 7(2) is capable of being month-specific and amount-specific; therefore, an erroneous finding concerning some months is severable from a valid finding concerning another month.

Relying on Ashok Tripathy v. Tapan Kumar Adhya & Ors., C.O. 1031 of 2025, decided on 28 March 2025, the Court held that a tenant cannot convert a partial factual error into annulment of the entire Section 7(2) adjudication.

The Court accepted that the tenant claimed to possess receipts for April 2019 and July 2022, but noted that no such documents had been produced when the Section 7(2) application was adjudicated.

Even assuming that the Trial Court had incorrectly treated those two months as unpaid, the tenant admittedly remained in default for December 2017 and had not deposited that amount in compliance with the order dated 28 July 2022.

Since the tenant neither disputed the December 2017 default nor sought a permissible extension of time under the proviso to Section 7(2), the mandatory statutory consequences continued to apply.

The alleged errors concerning April 2019 and July 2022 were severable and did not invalidate the independent finding regarding December 2017; consequently, there was no basis to recall or annul the entire Section 7(2) order.

It found no illegality or material irregularity in the Trial Court’s order dated 17 July 2025 and dismissed the civil revision, C.O. 3688 of 2025, without costs.