A discrepancy in premises numbering alone does not invalidate rent deposits absent proof they concern a different property.

The landlords challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Trial Court’s order dated 11 August 2025 in an ejectment suit, which allowed the tenants’ application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and directed payment of current rent

The tenants had filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) after entering appearance in 2009.

An earlier order on the Section 7(2) application had been set aside in revision, with the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.

The landlords alleged continuing default and disputed the validity of deposits, including on grounds of incorrect premises descriptions and deposits in the names of persons allegedly not entitled to receive rent.

The tenants relied on court and Rent Controller deposit records as evidence of payment.

Whether the tenants were in arrears of rent and whether their rent deposits were valid and sufficient under the Act of 1997

Whether the Trial Court’s order allowing the Section 7(2) application disclosed patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227

Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 governs a tenant’s obligations to pay or deposit rent and the consequences of default; the validity of deposits is assessed against the statutory requirements and the evidence establishing payment.

In determining default, courts must consider relevant documentary evidence of rent deposited through court; a substantiated deposit cannot be displaced by bare denial.

The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022, which excluded the specified period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 for limitation computation.

Under Article 227, supervisory interference is limited and is not warranted absent patent illegality or material irregularity.

The Court found that the tenants had appeared and filed their statutory applications within the prescribed period.

The City Civil Court deposit register and related documents supported deposits for February 2003 and December 2005, and the landlords produced no cogent evidence rebutting those records.

The record also indicated that February 2006 rent had been deposited with statutory interest and that June 2010 rent was deposited on 18 June 2010.

The discrepancy in premises numbering did not establish that deposits related to a different property, absent supporting documentary evidence.

The Court stated that pandemic-period deposits had to be assessed in light of the Supreme Court’s orders.

On the materials considered, the Court found no basis to disturb the Trial Court’s conclusion, while expressly making its conclusion subject to compliance with the statutory requirements governing the deposits.

The revisional application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.