Disposed¶9

Chandrachur Chatterjee v. Malati Sen and Anr.

Calcutta HC6 May 2026CO/2054/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CO 2054 of 2024; Chandrachur Chatterjee v. Smt. Malati Sen & Anr.; High Court at Calcutta, Civil Revisional Jurisdiction; West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 Section 7(3); invalid rent deposit since December 1989; challan; extent of tenancy; Rs.150 per month; 413 months; 10% statutory interest; order dated 18 April 2024; interim order 13 June 2024; Rent Controller withdrawal of deposit; disposed with liberties.

What did the court decide?

Petition permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to deposit rent as directed by the impugned order dated 18 April 2024 within one month (on or before 6 June 2026), liberty to raise contentions regarding extent of tenancy before the Trial Court during trial; connected pending applications disposed of; withdrawal of previously deposited rent to be sought before the Rent Controller. ¶9

Chandrachur Chatterjee Vs Malati Sen and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court could hold the deposit made by the defendant/petitioner invalid on the ground that the extent of tenancy was not correctly mentioned in the challan. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The extent of the tenancy shall be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court upon leading of evidence by both parties.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

If the rent is deposited by the petitioner/tenant in terms of the order dated 18 April 2024 within one month of this Court's order, it will not prejudice either of the parties.

¶6

Key takeaways

The learned Trial Court shall decide the application under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act, 1997 in accordance with law without being influenced by the liberty granted by this Court to the tenant to deposit the rent.ratio¶6
The petitioner/tenant may move an application for withdrawal of the rent already deposited before the Rent Controller, who shall decide it only after issuing notice to the other parties in accordance with law.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.) disposed of CO 2054 of 2024, filed by tenant Chandrachur Chatterjee against the Trial Court's order dated 18.04.2024 declaring his deposits since December 1989 invalid (for incorrect mention of the extent of tenancy in the challan) and directing payment of rent at Rs.150 p.m. for 413 months with 10% statutory interest. Counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to comply with the impugned order and to contest the extent of tenancy at trial. The Court held that a deposit per the impugned order within one month prejudices neither party; the pending Section 7(3) WBPT Act, 1997 application must be decided by the Trial Court uninfluenced by the liberty granted; the extent of tenancy is to be adjudicated on evidence. The tenant may apply to the Rent Controller for withdrawal of earlier deposits, to be decided only after notice to other parties.

¶1

06.05.2026 Court No.2 Item No.5 sudipta

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CO 2054 of 2024

¶4

Chandrachur Chatterjee Vs.

¶5

Smt. Malati Sen & Anr.

¶6

Mr. Sibnath Ganguly Mr. Argha Banerjee

¶7

…for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey Ms. Anjana Banerjee Mr. Subhankar Banerjee

¶9

…for the opposite parties

¶10

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18^th April, 2024 whereby the learned Trial Court, inter alia, found the deposit made by the defendant / petitioner from December 1989 as invalid deposit and further, inter alia, directed the petitioner / defendant to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.150 per month for 413 months along with 10 per cent statutory interest within one month from the date of the order. The petitioner aggrieved of this invokes the jurisdiction of this Court and submits that the learned Trial Court could not have, inter alia, held the deposit invalid on the ground that the extent of tenancy has not been correctly mentioned in the challan.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the order has been passed by the Trial Court in accordance with law and since there is a default in the

¶12

¶13

payment of rent, the landlord is entitled to get the benefit under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also submitted that he has filed an application under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act, 1997 which is pending disposal before the learned Trial Court.

¶14

During the course of submissions learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to deposit the rent as directed vide impugned order dated 18^th April, 2024 within one month from the date of the order passed by this Court and with liberty to raise all the contentions regarding the extent of the tenancy before the learned Trial Court during the course of the trial.

¶15

On perusal of the record, it indicates that pursuant to the filing of the petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim protection vide order dated 13^th June, 2024 which was later on extended till November, 2024. It seems that thereafter the petition was not taken up for hearing.

¶16

Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that if the petitioner is given liberty to deposit the rent, now it will take away the benefit to the opposite party / landlord as provided under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act, 1997.

¶17

¶18

The Court considers that if the rent is deposited by the petitioner / tenant in terms of order dated 18^th April, 2024 within one month of the order of this Court, it will not prejudice either of the parties. Learned Trial Court shall decide the application under Section 7(3) of the WBPT Act, 1997 in accordance with law without being influenced by the liberty granted by this Court to the petitioner / tenant to deposit the rent. Furthermore, as far as the extent of the tenancy is concerned that shall also be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court upon leading of the evidence by both the parties.

¶19

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petition being CO 2054 of 2024 is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court.

¶20

All connected pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

¶21

The petitioner shall deposit the rent within one month i.e. on or before 6^th June, 2026 in terms of the order dated 18^th April, 2024.

¶22

The petitioner / tenant may move an application for withdrawal of the rent already deposited before the Rent Controller. Learned Rent Controller shall decide the same only after issuing notice to the other parties in accordance with law.

¶23

¶24

All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶25

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)

Chandrachur Chatterjee v. Malati Sen and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrachur Chatterjee v. Malati Sen and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pankaj Paul and Ors. Vs Smt. Bani Mallick and Ors.

Harsh Transport Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Cesc Limited Vs M/S Popat and Katecha Property

Dipak Mondal Vs Bikash Dhar and Ors.

Rajesh Khandelwal Vs Zaid Alam and Others

Hemant Bangur and Ors. Vs Madhulata Kankani