Item- 4. sg 03-07-2026 Ct. 6 CO 1126 of 2026 Debi Prasad Choukhani Versus Arun Gopal Ghosal [ Mr. Sanjib Seth …for the petitioner Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Mr. K. Bhattacharyya Ms. Priyanka Jana …for the opposite party Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order”, but with the consent of the learned Advocate for the respective parties, this civil revisional application is treated to be on day’s list and is taken up for final hearing. The order being no. 10 dated 10th March, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Howrah in Title Suit No 506 of 2025 is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed at the instance of the defendant. By the order impugned, the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was disposed of upon holding that the petitioner is defaulter in payment of rent and directing the petitioner to deposit certain amount in two equal instalments within the specified time. Mr. Seth, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Judge did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner had paid a substantial sum of money in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties to the effect that the petitioner shall purchase the suit property. He further submits that the interest amount has also not been calculated in accordance with the provision of Section 7(2) of the said Act. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the learned Trial Judge, after considering the relevant provisions of the statute, has passed the order by correctly applying the provisions relating to interest. He further draws the attention of the Court to a document annexed at page 39 of the civil revisional application and submits that it would be evident from the said document that the amount was paid on account of advance rent and not towards advance money for purchase of the property. He further submits that such document was not part of the records before the learned trial Judge. In reply, Mr. Seth learned Advocate for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the subsequent paragraphs of the said document appearing at page 39 in support of his contention that the payment was made towards advance consideration money as well as for other purposes. Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties and peruse the materials placed. Upon a bare reading of the provisions of Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, this Court finds that the statute did not provide for payment of interest at compound rate. The co-ordinate Bench in the case of Gopinath Roy & Ors. vs. Sasthi Charan Ghosh reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 22892 specifically held that the interest must be calculated taking the simple interest. The co- ordinate Bench held thus: “On a plain reading of the Section it appears to me that it is nowhere in that Section stated that the interest shall be calculated at the rate of compound 2 interest. The relevant portion of Section 7(1) is quoted herein once again. "calculated at the rate at which it was last paid and upto the end of the month previous to that in which the payment is made together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum." Going by the intention of the Legislature it is very difficult on the part of the court to express the intention of the Legislature meant for compound interest not for simple interest. If I interpret this Section liberally, it cannot be said that the interest is to be calculated on the basis of compound rate. With the aforesaid observations I find it judicious to interfere with the order impugned. The impugned order is modified touching the interest part of the same. The interest must be calculated taking the simple interest”. This Court, therefore, holds that the learned Trial Judge wrongly calculated the interest at compound rate. That apart, a document has been produced before this Court which is appearing at page 39 of this civil revisional application. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the opposite party raises an objection that such document was not placed before the learned Trial Judge. However, this Court finds that the learned Trial Judge took note of the submission of the defendant that it was settled between the parties that the defendant is going to purchase the suit property and has already paid a huge amount as advance, so he need not pay any amount for rent month by month. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the learned Trial Judge for reconsideration of the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for a fresh decision on the issue relating to calculation of interest and whether the petitioner is entitled to any adjustment of any amount from the rent payable. If the document, which is annexed at page 39 of the 3 civil revisional application, is produced by the petitioner before the learned Trial Judge, it will be upon to the opposite party to raise an objection against such document before the learned Trial Judge and make submission in support of his case. For all reasons as aforesaid, the impugned order stands set aside with a direction upon the learned Trial Judge to reconsider the same only in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. The learned Trial Judge shall be free to decide as to whether the document appearing at page 39 of the civil revisional application should be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible but preferably by the end of the month of September, 2026 without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 4