LexSEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL versus ISMAT AHMED AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 156 : 2025 INSC 984 Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed and Others (Civil Appeal No. 10649 of 2025) 13 August 2025 [J.K. Maheshwari* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether applications filed u/ss.7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 by the tenant without deposit of rent after lapse of statutory period of thirty days, along with an application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, rejected by Court of Small Causes as not entertainable, confirmed by the High Court is justified. Headnotes† West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act) – s.7 – When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – General Clauses Act – Benefit of protection against eviction u/s.7, when not available: Held: In general, the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 is permissible subject to limitation prescribed under the provisions of the WBPT Act – If a lesser time period or limitation has been specified for proceedings under the WBPT Act, then extension of time applying the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be allowed – In the present case, neither the rent as specified u/ss.7(1) and 7(2) was paid or deposited by the tenant, nor the application for determination of rent was filed within the period of 30 days as prescribed – Therefore, in the absence of fulfilment of these twin conditions, tenant cannot avail the benefit of protection against eviction as envisaged u/s.7 – Due to non-compliance of deposit and filing of an application within the prescribed period of 30 days, the consequence as specified in sub-section (3) of s.7 shall follow – The benefit of proviso w.r.t the extended time would not be available to the appellant–tenant prior to rent determination stage – The compliance as required to be done by the tenant in s.7(1)(a)(b)(c) and first part of s.7(2) regarding deposit of rent and filing an application within the same time is mandatory – In default, they cannot avail the benefit of the proviso of sub-section * Author [2025] 9 S.C.R. 157 Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed and Others (2) which only relates to the payment of determined amount of rent and whereby the Civil Judge may exercise the discretion to grant extension of time – Appeal of the tenant fails – Order of the Small Causes Court and the High Court maintained. [Paras 21, 34-36] West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s.7 – When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction – Interpretation. [Paras 12-17, 28, 29, 32, 33] West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s.40 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 vis à-vis WBPT Act – Discussed. [Paras 19, 21] West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – ss.7(1)(a)(b)(c) and 7(2) and proviso thereto – ‘shall’; ‘may’ – Whether compliance of the provisions of ss.7(1) and 7(2) so far as it relates to payment or deposit of the rent and filing of application within the time as specified is mandatory or directory: Held: In view of the plain reading of the provisions specified in ss.7(1)(a)(b)(c) and 7(2) and also the proviso thereto, it is clear that for the purpose of payment or deposit of the arrears of rent or rent admitted to be due within the time as specified and also for filing of the application, the word ‘shall’ has been used – However, for the purpose of extension of time, the word ‘may’ has been used indicating discretion vested with the Court – The proviso to s.7(2) can only be construed to permit extension in payment of amount so specified in order of determination passed by the Civil Judge as envisaged in the latter part of sub-section(2) of s.7 – Thus, the word ‘may’ used in the proviso of s.7(2) would only relate to extension of time, which is a discretion vested with the Civil Judge and it would not construe any other meaning – Moreover, since in sub section(3) of s.7, the consequence of non-compliance has been specified, therefore, use of the word ‘shall’ in ss.7(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 7(2) is a mandatory compliance for the tenant, failing which, his defence against eviction shall be struck off. [Para 24] West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s.7(3) – Contingencies under – Explained. [Para 33] Interpretation of Statutes – Principles of statutory interpretation – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s.7(1), (2) and proviso thereto – ‘shall’; ‘may’ – Definition –
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.