Default in Complying with Section 7(2) Statutory Deposits Mandates Eviction Regardless of Prior Tentative Adjustments

The respondents (landlords/plaintiffs) filed an ejectment suit (No. 04 of 2004) against the appellant (tenant) for a premises at 173 AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, on grounds of default in rent and building/re-building

The appellant claimed to have deposited rent in court following previous litigation (T.S. 53 of 1967) and paid excess municipal taxes, seeking adjustment

Under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the Trial Court determined arrears at ₹1,63,372; however, the High Court later modified this, allowing an adjustment of ₹85,000 against taxes paid, stating the tenant would not be a "defaulter" until March 2005

The Trial Court eventually decreed eviction on the ground of default but rejected the building/re-building ground

The First Appellate Court affirmed the eviction for default and reversed the decision on building/re-building, granting eviction on both grounds

1. Whether the lower courts erred in law by passing a decree for eviction on the ground of default despite the appellant's purported compliance with Section 7 of the Act?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in granting eviction for building and re-building when the owners lacked independent means and engaged a promoter?

3. Whether the decree for building and re-building is sustainable in law in the absence of a provision for giving back possession to the tenant?

The court applied Section 6(1)(b) and (c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, regarding eviction for default and reconstruction

It relied on Section 7(2) and 7(4) regarding the mandatory nature of depositing determined arrears to avoid eviction

Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya (2019) regarding the mandatory timelines for rent deposits

Netaram v. Jiwan Lal (1963) regarding the "honesty" and "genuineness" required for reconstruction claims

Mahananda v. Biswanath (1976) concerning the court's power to provide for re-entry even if omitted in the initial decree

Regarding default, the Court found that while the High Court had allowed an adjustment of ₹85,000, the appellant failed to deposit the remaining balance of ₹78,372 with interest as determined

The appellant’s act of obtaining a separate ex-parte decree for the refund of municipal taxes meant they could no longer claim those same amounts as adjustment against rent

Failure to comply with the modified Section 7(2) order stripped the tenant of protection under Section 7(4)

On the issue of building/re-building, the Court held that "requirement" implies a genuine need rather than a mere desire for profit

It noted the plaintiffs (partly deities) failed to prove the necessity for augmentation of income or that they had obtained sanctioned plans

Furthermore, divesting 76% of a deity's property to a promoter without demonstrating necessity was deemed non-genuine

It set aside the decree on the ground of building and re-building, ruling that the landlords failed to establish a genuine "requirement" or prove the necessity for the deity's income augmentation

The Court clarified that the absence of a re-entry clause does not vitiate a decree as the court retains the power to issue such directions

The appeal was disposed of with the eviction standing solely on the ground of default