Facts
The petitioner, a landlord, inducted K.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd. as a tenant, who deposited monthly rent with the Rent Controller (Respondent No. 2) from March 2014 to January 2025 at ₹8,500/month
Source reference: p. 1-2Following a prior writ petition (WPO 461 of 2025) regarding inaction, the Rent Controller remitted the accumulated sum of ₹9,43,500 to the petitioner on 17.11.2025
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner subsequently demanded 12% interest on said amount for the period of deposit, which the Rent Controller rejected on 28.11.2025
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner challenged this refusal, alleging the Rent Controller failed its statutory duty to notify the landlord of deposits under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the rent amount deposited with the Rent Controller for the period between the deposit and the date of remittance
Source reference: p. 5, para. 182. Whether the writ petition is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata due to the previous litigation
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 8-9Law Applied
Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which mandates the procedure for tenant deposits and landlord notification
Source reference: p. 2, 4Rule 11 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules, 1999, which prescribes the specific format and procedure the landlord must follow to withdraw deposited rent
Source reference: p. 3, 4Principle of Res Judicata under Section 11, Explanation V of the Code of Civil Procedure as discussed in Saroja v. Chinnusamy (MANU/SC/3416/2007)
Source reference: p. 3, 5Poornima Advani v. Government of NCT (MANU/SC/0265/2025)
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Court observed that while the petitioner alleged a lack of notification by the Rent Controller under Section 21, the petitioner’s own affidavits proved they had knowledge of the deposits as early as 2014
Source reference: p. 5, para. 16-17The Court found that Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules requires a landlord to file a specific application for withdrawal; however, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any such application was filed prior to the 2025 court order
Source reference: p. 4, para. 13Applying its own reasoning from a concurrent judgment in WPO 896 of 2025, the Court held that the delay in remittance was attributable to the petitioner's own lack of diligence and failure to follow statutory withdrawal procedures
Source reference: p. 5, para. 18-21Consequently, the principle that interest follows the retention of money without right (Poornima Advani) was held inapplicable because the State's retention was due to the petitioner’s inaction
Source reference: p. 5, para. 19Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that a petitioner cannot be compensated via interest for delays caused by their own failure to apply for withdrawal in the prescribed manner
The writ petition was dismissed, and the prayer for interest was rejected
Source reference: p. 6, para. 22No order as to costs was made
Source reference: p. 6, para. 22Original Court PDF
AJAY RAJ AGENCIES PVT.LTD.vsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in