SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 234

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Sri Indrajit Chakraborty - Appellant
Vs. 
Sri Tapan Paul - Respondent
C.O. 2415 of 2025 With CO 2227 of 2025
Decided On : 20-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Ayanabha Raha
For the Respondent: Mr. Pritam Choudhury, Mr. Ivan Roy, Mr. Debangshu Bandhu

Under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, a tenant must deposit all arrears calculated at the last paid rate to secure protection against eviction, with the court mandated to address unresolved issues at trial.

Headnote:(A) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - Sections 7(1) and 7(2) - Tenancy dispute - Defendant directed to deposit arrears of rent and current rent monthly - Court held rate of rent last paid is Rs. 500/- and ordered a fresh consideration of the rent adjustment claim, emphasizing compliance with statutory deposit requirements. (Paras 22-30)

(B) Tenant's obligation - To obtain eviction protection, a tenant must deposit all arrears calculated at the last paid rate per Section 7(1)(a). (Paras 22-28)

(C) Court's discretion - Adjudication on rent adjustment and obligation was to occur at the trial level, not left unresolved. (Paras 35-41)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought eviction based on alleged defaults and disputes over the rent amount, with the tenant asserting payments were made at a lower rate than contended by the plaintiff.

Findings of Court:
The learned trial judge erred in accepting the contractual rent over payment made and must address pending issues regarding adjustments.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of the contractual rent versus the rent actually paid and the implications for eviction proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that contractual rent shall not be favored over the last paid rent for calculation under the Act, and an unresolved issue of adjustments must be revisited by the trial judge.

Result: Impugned order set aside; remanded for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. legal challenge to prior order (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background of tenant's eviction suit (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
3. arguments on rent payment default (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. testimony regarding rent payments (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. court’s position on rent deposits (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. interpretation of section 7 of the act (Para 22 , 24 , 26)
7. tenant's obligations under the act (Para 28 , 29 , 34)
8. court’s refusal to prejudge ancillary case (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
9. court’s final orders issued (Para 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The order being no. 46 dated April 22, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 56 of 2018 is under challenge in these applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. C.O. 2415 of 2025 is at the instance of the plaintiff and C.O. 2227 of 2025 is at the instance of the defendant.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was disposed of on contest by directing the defendant to deposit the arrear rent together with interest by two easy instalments in compliance with Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and the defendant was directed to deposit current rent within the 15th of each succeeding month. The adjustment of the adjudicated rate of rent with the renovation cost and salami was left open to be adjudicated at the time of trial.

3. Since both the civil revision applications arise out of the selfsame order, the same were heard analogously and are decided by this common order.

4. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to according to their rank in CO 2227 of 2025.

5. The opposite parties filed a suit for eviction inter alia on the grounds of default and reasonable requirement against the petitioner.

6. The case made out in the plaint in a nutshell is as follows-

The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties namely Sunil Chakraborty inducted the petitioner as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property by virtue of a tenancy agreement dated 01.12.2000. The rate of rent at the inception of the tenancy was Rs. 1,200/- per month payable in advance. In the agreement there was a stipulation regarding enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% of the existing rent after expiry of 5 years. The defendant paid partial rent at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month up to February, 2016 and is a defaulter in payment of full rent since March, 2016.

7. Petitioner entered appearance in the said suit and filed applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (for short the “1997 Act”).

8. In the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act, the petitioner stated that he was inducted sometimes in the month of September, 1999 as a tenant by Sunil Chakraborty and he used to pay rent of Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite parties and the opposite parties used to provide rent receipt of Rs. 500/- per month and tendered rent by hand up to April, 2016. It was further stated therein that the opposite party no. 1 refused to accept rent for the month of May, 2016 and the petitioner sent the rent by Money Order and thereafter, started depositing rent before the Rent Controller from May, 2016 till March, 2018 and prayed for permission to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from April, 2018 onwards month by month.

9. In the application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the petitioner has stated that the opposite party no. 1 used to issue rent receipt of Rs. 500/- per month against payment of rent of Rs. 1200/-. The petitioner has disputed the rate of rent as well as the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Petitioner claims to have paid a huge amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- to Sunil Chakraborty as salami and with the consent of the landlord renovated the suit premises at his own cost of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the petitioner claimed adjustment of the aforesaid amounts from the mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top