Interest on funds held by an administrative custodian cannot be claimed as compensation where the delay is caused by the applicant's failure to comply with mandatory statutory withdrawal protocols, and the authority has acted within its regulated administrative framework without unauthorized or illicit retention.

Judgment :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent nos. 3 and 6 to credit the amount lying with them in the account of the petitioner maintained with the Rent Controller of Kolkata and to direct the Rent Controller, Kolkata to release the deposited rent amount of Rs.1,70,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

2. Petitioner claims to have inducted K.G. Industries Private Limited as a monthly tenant in respect of a premises being no. 14, Portuguese, Church Street under Police Station-Burrabazar, Kolkata – 700 001 (for short “the tenanted premises”). The petitioner claims that the said tenant was depositing monthly rent in the office of the Rent Controller at Kolkata i.e., the 2^nd respondent from the month of March 2014, till January 2025 at the rate of Rs. 8500 per month. The petitioner further states that the tenant deposited total amount of rent of Rs. 11,13,500 for the aforesaid period of 131 months and in spite of repeated request and reminders, the second respondent did not remit the deposited rent to the petitioner.

3. Petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition and pursuant to an order dated 11.07.2025 passed by a co-ordinate bench, the 2nd respondent remitted an amount of Rs. 9,43,500/- on 17.11.2025 out of the total deposited amount of Rs. 11,13,500/-. Since the balance amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- was yet to be remitted, the petitioner by letters dated 01.09.2025 and 04.09.2025, requested the respondent authority to remit the rent for 20 months and the challans for the said 20 months were enclosed with the said letter.

4. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not remitting the balance amount of rent to the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed.

5. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the writ petition the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- had been remitted to the petitioner.

6. Mr. Datta the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the tenant deposited the monthly rents for the period from March 2014 till January 2025 with the second respondent but the second respondent caused unnecessary delay in remitting the amount on account of rent to the petitioner. He placed strong reliance upon the provisions laid down in Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, in support of his contention that the deposit made by the tenant shall have to be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit by the tenant and such application shall be accompanied by as many true copies thereof, as there are landlords for sending such copy or copies to the landlords. He contended that the 2nd respondent did not comply with such statutory obligations.

7. The learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poornima Advani and Ors. vs. Government of NCT and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0265/2025 in support of his contention that the obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest.

8. By referring to the reliefs claimed in the earlier writ petition, Ms. Banerjee learned advocate for the State contended that the prayer of the petitioner claiming interest was not allowed