Mandatory Compliance with Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act is a Precondition for Entertaining Section 7(2) Dispute Applications

The opposite party (landlord) filed Ejectment Suit No. 308 of 2025 against the petitioner (tenant) for recovery of possession

Summons was served on November 20, 2025

The petitioner filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 ("1997 Act") on December 19, 2025

The Trial Court permitted the deposit of "admitted arrears" on the same day

The petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the statutory timeframe, alleging the department refused the deposit. Consequently, on January 16, 2026, the Trial Court rejected his Section 151 CPC application to extend time and struck out his defense under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act

On February 23, 2026, the Trial Court further held the petitioner’s written statement to be "unnecessary and redundant"

1. Whether the Trial Court was required to adjudicate the Section 7(2) application regarding a dispute over the rate of rent before striking out the defense under Section 7(3)

2. Whether the non-compliance with Section 7(1) (deposit of admitted arrears within one month of summons) mandates the striking out of defense despite a pending dispute under Section 7(2)

3. Whether the High Court has the power to extend the statutory period for deposit under the 1997 Act

The Court applied Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which mandates the deposit of admitted arrears within one month of service of summons

Supreme Court precedent in Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School vs. Ismat Ahmed, which held that compliance with Section 7(1) is a mandatory precondition for entertaining an application under Section 7(2)

Section 7(3) regarding the mandatory striking out of defense for default

The Court distinguished Syed Khawaja Moin vs. Md. Safi Alam, noting that the requirement to decide disputes first applies only when the landlord-tenant relationship itself is challenged

State of Punjab vs. Surinder Kumar to clarify that High Courts do not possess the Article 142 powers of the Supreme Court to bypass statutory limitations for "complete justice"

The Court found that while the petitioner used the phrase "without prejudice" in his application, his pleadings and prayer for permission to deposit specific sums (Rs. 1,62,800/-) constituted an admission of arrears

Since summons was served on Nov 20, 2025, the statutory deadline to deposit admitted arrears under Section 7(1) was Dec 20, 2025

The petitioner only attempted to deposit on Jan 7, 2026, which is beyond the one-month limit

The Court reasoned that Section 7(1) admits no exceptions or extensions of time; once a tenant fails this mandatory requirement, the Section 7(2) application becomes a "non-starter" and Section 7(3) triggers automatically to strike out the defense

The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on Pawan Kumar Agarwal, stating that the High Court is circumscribed by legal limitations and cannot exercise subjective whims to extend statutory periods

The Court dismissed both revisional applications, affirming the Trial Court's orders dated January 16, 2026, and February 23, 2026. Consequently, the written statement becomes redundant, but the petitioner retains the limited right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses despite the struck-out defense