Ajay Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal And Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The petitioner sought directions for release of ₹1,70,000 along with interest at 12% per annum, representing rent deposited by the tenant with the Rent Controller, Kolkata. The tenant had deposited monthly rent of ₹8,500 from March 2014 to January 2025, amounting to ₹11,13,500. Out of this, ₹9,43,500 was released pursuant to an earlier court order, while the remaining ₹1,70,000 was released during the pendency of the present writ petition.
The dispute primarily concerned the petitioner’s claim for interest on the delayed release of the deposited rent. The petitioner alleged inaction by the authorities and relied on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to argue that retention of money entitled him to interest. The State opposed the claim on two grounds: first, that the claim was barred by constructive res judicata since interest had been sought but not granted in earlier proceedings; and second, that the governing statute did not provide for payment of interest.
The Court first examined whether the petition was barred by constructive res judicata. It noted that for res judicata to apply, the issue must have been “heard and finally decided” in the earlier proceeding. Although the petitioner had sought interest earlier, the coordinate bench had not adjudicated this issue and had only granted liberty to apply for withdrawal of rent. Therefore, the claim for interest had not been finally decided and could not be deemed refused merely because it was not expressly granted. The Court held that Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be read harmoniously with the main provision and cannot apply where there has been no adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition was held maintainable.
