Summary and Analysis of Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School vs Ismat Ahmed and Others

1. Heading of the Judgment

Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School vs Ismat Ahmed and Others
(Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 10900 of 2024)

Citation

Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School vs Ismat Ahmed and Others, (2025) INSC 984.

Judges

J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Date

August 13, 2025.

2. Related Laws and Provisions

The judgment interprets:

• Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (WBPT Act):
  Conditions for tenants to claim protection against eviction.

• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
  Condonation of delay in legal proceedings.

• Section 40 of the WBPT Act:
  Applicability of the Limitation Act to WBPT proceedings.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School (tenant).
  Respondents: Ismat Ahmed & Ors. (landlords).

• Core Issue:
  Whether a tenant can seek condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for late filing of an application under Section 7(1) of the WBPT Act to deposit rent during eviction proceedings.

• Lower Courts' Decisions:
  Small Causes Court (17.07.2023): Rejected the tenant's application for condonation of delay.
  Calcutta High Court (20.03.2024): Upheld the Small Causes Court's order.

• Supreme Court's Decision:
  Dismissed the appeal, confirming that delay in depositing rent under Section 7(1) WBPT Act cannot be condoned.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Factual Background

• The appellant-tenant occupied Flat No. 8, Kolkata, at a monthly rent of ₹1,090.

• Landlords filed an ejectment suit (11.06.2019) on grounds of rent arrears, bona fide need, and sub-letting.

• Summons served on the tenant on 29.09.2022.

• Courts were closed for Durga Puja vacation (30.09.2022 to 27.10.2022).

• Tenant filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of WBPT Act on 14.11.2022 (17 days late), seeking to:
  Deposit "current rent" for November 2022.
  Determine default period and claim refund of excess rent paid (₹2,80,500 vs. alleged arrears of ₹74,120).

• An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act sought condonation of the 17-day delay.

B. Legal Issue

Whether the mandatory 30-day deadline under Section 7(1)(b) WBPT Act for depositing rent after service of summons can be extended using Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

C. Supreme Court's Analysis

1. Strict Compliance with Section 7 WBPT Act:
   Section 7(1)(b) requires tenants to deposit admitted rent arrears + 10% interest within 30 days of receiving summons.
   Section 7(2) mandates that in case of disputed rent, the tenant must deposit the admitted amount + file a rent-determination application within the same 30 days.
   The word "together" in Section 7(2) means deposit and application must be filed simultaneously within 30 days.
   Consequence of Non-Compliance (Section 7(3)):
   Defence against eviction is struck out, and the suit proceeds.

2. Limitation Act Not Applicable:
   Section 40 of WBPT Act allows the Limitation Act only if no specific period is prescribed under WBPT Act.
   Since WBPT Act fixes a 30-day deadline (shorter than general limitation periods), Section 5 cannot extend it.
   Bijay Kumar Singh vs Amit Kumar Chamariya (2019):
   Deposit of admitted rent is a "precondition" for protection; delay cannot be condoned.

3. Proviso to Section 7(2) Is Narrow:
   The proviso (allowing a one-time 2-month extension) applies only to post-determination rent payments under Section 7(2), not to the initial 30-day deposit period.

4. "Shall" vs. "May" in WBPT Act:
   "Shall" in Sections 7(1)(a), (b), (c) and 7(2) imposes mandatory obligations (e.g., deposit within 30 days).
   "May" in the proviso to Section 7(2) grants discretionary power for limited extensions.

D. Outcome

• Tenant's delay was unexcused:
  Deadline ended on 28.10.2022 (30 days from 29.09.2022).
  Filing on 14.11.2022 was 17 days late, violating the mandatory timeline.

• No grounds to condone delay:
  Excess rent payment claimed by tenant was irrelevant to statutory compliance.
  Durga Puja vacation did not suspend the limitation period.

• Appeal dismissed: Orders of Small Causes Court and High Court upheld.

Key Takeaway:
The Supreme Court reinforced that statutory deadlines for rent deposit in eviction suits are mandatory and non-extendable. Tenants must strictly comply with Section 7 of the WBPT Act to claim protection against eviction. Equitable considerations (e.g., alleged excess rent payment) cannot override explicit legislative mandates.