Rent deposits not made in accordance with the 1997 Act are invalid and justify striking out the tenant’s defence.

The appellant-tenant challenged a judgment of affirmance whereby the Courts below decreed eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and the landlord’s reasonable requirement of the suit premises.

The original eviction suit had initially been dismissed for default and was subsequently restored. During the intervening period, the appellant continued depositing rent in connection with the dismissed suit rather than paying the landlord directly. Those deposits were treated as invalid, resulting in the appellant being held a defaulter and the defence being struck out under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

The appellant also contended that the landlord had not proved the capacity or necessity to conduct a business from the premises.

Whether the rent deposits made by the appellant during the period when the eviction suit stood dismissed were valid deposits under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and whether the appellant was consequently liable to be treated as a defaulter with the defence struck out under Section 7(3).

Whether the landlord was required to adduce detailed evidence regarding her capacity or necessity to conduct a business in the suit premises in order to establish reasonable requirement.

Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting admission of the second appeal.

The Court applied Sections 6 and 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Section 6 was considered in relation to the tenant’s liability for default in payment of rent, while Section 7(3) authorises striking out the tenant’s defence against delivery of possession where the statutory requirements concerning payment or deposit of rent are not complied with.

The Court further applied the principle that a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement to start a business need not furnish detailed evidence of business capacity merely to substantiate the requirement of the tenanted premises.

A second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable only where a substantial question of law arises; accordingly, the appeal was considered under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court held that the appellant’s deposits were not made in accordance with the applicable statutory procedure under the 1997 Act. Their asserted bona fide character did not cure the failure to comply with the prescribed manner of payment or deposit; therefore, the Courts below were justified in treating them as invalid and in striking out the appellant’s defence under Section 7(3).

On reasonable requirement, the Court found that the landlord was not obliged to produce detailed proof of her capacity to conduct business. In any event, the suit premises had admittedly been used commercially by the appellant, demonstrating its viability for business purposes.

The concurrent factual findings that the landlord reasonably required the premises disclosed no legal error or perversity giving rise to a substantial question of law.

No substantial question of law was found to arise. SAT 76 of 2026 was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC, and CAN 1 of 2026 was consequently dismissed. There was no order as to costs.