Bona fide tender and statutory recourse after refusal do not warrant striking out the tenant’s defence.

The petitioners, tenants in Ejectment Suit No. 34 of 2025, challenged the order dated 18 September 2025 by which the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, rejected their applications under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and struck out their defence.

The trial court held that rent for July 2024 had been deposited only in September 2024, beyond the statutory period, and could therefore be treated as a bad deposit.

The tenants contended that rent for June 2024 had been paid to the landlady, while rent for July 2024 was initially tendered by post and subsequently sent by money order on 13 August 2024.

The money order was refused and returned with the postal endorsement “refused” on or about 17–19 August 2024. The tenants thereafter approached the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the 1997 Act on 27 August 2024. By order dated 30 August 2024, the Rent Controller permitted them to deposit the July rent. The tenants deposited the amount before the Civil Court on 17 September 2024, within one month of the Rent Controller’s order.

Whether the tenants’ deposit of July 2024 rent after obtaining permission from the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 could be treated as a bad or belated deposit attracting striking out of the defence under Section 7(3) of the Act.

Whether the tenants’ prior tenders of rent, the landlady’s refusal to accept payment, and the tenants’ subsequent recourse to the Rent Controller excluded or negated a wilful default under Section 7 of the Act.

Whether Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1696, required striking out the tenants’ defence in the circumstances of the present case.

Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 requires a tenant seeking protection against eviction to pay or deposit rent within the prescribed statutory period, and Section 7(3) permits striking out of the defence for non-compliance.

The proviso to Section 7(2) does not confer a general power on the Civil Court to extend the initial thirty-day period; the statutory period cannot ordinarily be enlarged by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act or the proviso to Section 7(2), as held in Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1696.

At the same time, Section 21 of the 1997 Act provides a statutory mechanism for a tenant to deposit rent where the landlord refuses to accept it.

The High Court held that the tenants had not simply withheld rent or allowed the statutory period to lapse. They had first tendered the July 2024 rent, sent it by money order after the initial refusal, and promptly approached the Rent Controller after the money order was again refused.

The subsequent deposit before the Civil Court followed the Rent Controller’s permission and was made within one month of that order. Accordingly, the deposit was not an unexplained or wilful failure to comply with Section 7, but the result of the statutory procedure invoked after the landlady refused payment.

The court distinguished between impermissibly condoning a delay in the initial statutory period and deciding whether a default attracting Section 7(3) had occurred in the first place.

Seventh Day Adventist barred extension of the statutory period through Section 5 of the Limitation Act or the proviso to Section 7(2), but did not require a tenant who had bona fide tendered rent and invoked Section 21 after refusal to be treated identically to a tenant who had made no attempt to pay.

The trial court therefore erred by considering only the date of deposit before the Civil Court and by disregarding the prior tenders, refusal, application under Section 21, and the Rent Controller’s permission.

The order dated 18 September 2025 of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in Ejectment Suit No. 34 of 2025 was set aside.

Both civil revisions were allowed, and the petitioners were permitted to contest the suit, subject to continued compliance with their statutory obligations to pay or deposit current rent.