The Deadline Cannot Be Extended. Losing The Defence Is Another Matter.
Tenants who tendered rent, were refused, and then took the statutory route have had their defence restored — on a distinction the trial court missed.
The Court held that while Seventh Day Adventist binds on the proposition that the initial statutory period under Section 7 cannot be enlarged by Section 5 of the Limitation Act or the proviso, it does not mandate striking out the defence where the tenant's inability to deposit arose in the course of bona fide tender and statutory recourse following the landlord's refusal. The petitioners could not be visited with that extreme consequence, and the order was set aside.
- Two different questions. Whether time can be extended, and whether the defence must be struck out, are not the same.
- Bona fide tender matters — they tried to pay and were refused.
- Striking out is an extreme consequence, and the Court used that phrase.
- The reprieve is conditional on continued compliance with current rent.
- Court
- High Court at Calcutta
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
- Citation
- C.O. Nos. 4115 and 4117 of 2025
- Case
- C.O. Nos. 4115 and 4117 of 2025
- Decided
- September 2026
- Outcome
- Revisions allowed; order striking out defence set aside
What the binding authority actually decides
Seventh Day Adventist binds on the proposition that the initial statutory period under Section 7 cannot be enlarged by resort to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, or to the proviso to Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act.
But it does not mandate the striking out of the defence in a case where the tenant's inability to deposit before the court within the period arose in the course of a bona fide tender and statutory recourse, following refusal by the landlord.
The impugned order proceeded on an erroneous application of that decision.
The order
Tested on those principles, the petitioners could not, in the circumstances disclosed, be visited with the extreme consequence of striking out their defence.
The order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in the ejectment suit therefore suffers from an error of law and material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, and was set aside.
The petitioners are permitted to contest the suit, subject to their continued compliance with the statutory obligations regarding payment or deposit of current rent. Both revisions were allowed.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can the time to deposit rent under Section 7 be extended?
No. That period cannot be enlarged by Section 5 of the Limitation Act or the proviso.
Does missing it always cost me my defence?
No. Where the failure arose from a bona fide tender refused by the landlord, the Court held the defence should not be struck out.
Answering an application to strike out the defence
- Evidence the tender and the refusal contemporaneously; that is what saves the defence.
- Do not argue for extension of the statutory period — that is settled against you and distracts from the real point.
- Frame striking out as an extreme consequence requiring more than a missed date.
- Keep paying current rent throughout; the reprieve here was conditional on it.
Source. High Court at Calcutta, C.O. Nos. 4115 and 4117 of 2025, decided September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court at Calcutta and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in