Fair rent must be determined reasonably, considering locality, condition, and amenities, and cannot be solely based on outdated agreements.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICITON APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi WPLRT 170 of 2024 Kamal Singh Jain & Anr.

Vs.

Anil Kumar Poddar With WPLRT 47 of 2025 Anil Kumar Poddar Vs.

Kamal Singh Jain & Anr.

For the Petitioners in : Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Adv.

WPLRT 170 of 2024 Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv.

and Respondents in Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee, Adv.

WPLRT 47 of 2025 For the Respondent : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.

Landlord in Mr. Ashim Kumar Roy, Adv.

WPLRT 170 of 2024 Mr. Anirban Roy, Adv. and Petitioner in Mr. Debjit Basu, Adv.

WPLRT 47 of 2025 Heard on : April 11, 2025 Judgment on : May 15, 2025 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:-

1. The two writ petitions are in assailment of a common judgment and order dated October 7, 2022 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 3474 of 2022 and O.A. No. 3297 of 2022 (M.A. No. 496 of 2023) (LRTT) arising out of order dated August 24, 2022 passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C. 440 of

2003.

2. According to the case made out by the parties, the suit premises is located in a prestigious building in a commercial hub of Kolkata situated at 17, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata 700013, situated on the southern side of Sir R N Mukherjee Road. The suit premises is an office unit having a carpet area of 1700 square feet with a super built area of 2261 square feet on the fourth floor of a well-maintained prime commercial building. The aforesaid building was recently renovated and had the amenities of well-maintained floorings, lift and lobby, round the clock water supply, sanitary and plumbing installations and a supply of filtered water from the Municipal Corporation.

3. It was further the case of the parties that the suit premises was let out by the landlord, Anil Kumar Poddar, to the tenant Nos. 1 & 2 namely Kamal Singh Jain and Jatan Lal Bardia on and from August 1, 1988 in terms of an agreement to that effect dated August 1, 1988 at a monthly rental of ₹3,060/–. The monthly rental was enhanced to ₹3,366/– with effect from August 1, 1998. Since then, the monthly rental for the suit premises was never enhanced.

4. It also transpires from the materials placed before us that the landlord approached the Rent Controller, Kolkata, by filing an application under Section 17 (4B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act , 1997 on June 30, 2003, for fixation of fair rent. The application was registered as RC 440 of 2003. Later on, the landlord filed an application under Section 39 (11) of the Act of 1997 seeking amendment of the original claim under Section 17 (4B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act , 1997 (for short, Act of 1997). By such amendment, the landlord prayed for fixation of fair rent considering the market rent in terms of Section 17 (6) of the Act of 1997.

5. According to the landlord’s case, immediately after filing of the application for amendment of the claim, the tenants admitted the original claim made by the landlord for enhancement of fair rent to ₹12,240/– in terms of Section 17 (4B) of the Act of 1997. Such application for amendment, filed on behalf of the landlord, was allowed by learned Rent Controller upon contested hearing and accordingly, the landlord was granted liberty to file an application under Section 17 (6) of the Act of

1997.

6. According to the case made out by the landlord, since his application for fixation of fair rent was pending for 16 long years in violation of the provisions contained in Section 42 of the Act of 1997, the landlord preferred a revisional application being CO No. 2301 of 2019 before the High Court. By an order dated July 16, 2019 passed in CO No. 2301 of 2019, the High Court directed the learned rent controller to dispose of RC Case No. 440 of 2003 within six months. The rent controller having not disposed ofRC Case No. 440 of 2003 in terms of the directions of the High Court, the landlord filed a Contempt Application being C