Form No.J(2)

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

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 29578 of 2025 Mala Banerjee Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

With WPA 6030 of 2024 Raj Kapoor Jaiswal Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty In WPA 29578 of 2025 Mr. Shantanu Chakraborty For the petitioner in WPA: Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate

6030 of 2024 & respondent Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee No.9 in WPA 29578 of 2025 For Kolkata Municipal : Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee Corporation Mr. Fazlul Haque Ms. Ina Bhattacharya Heard on : 18.03.2026. Judgment on : 18.03.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

1. The present writ petition, being WPA 29578 of 2025 has been filed, inter alia, challenging the notice dated 17th December, 2025 issued under Section 545 and 546 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act).

2. The petitioner’s case proceeds on the premise that the petitioner was inducted by one Amiya Kumar Banerjee as tenant in respect of one room, one small room and one toilet with a right to use passage on the ground floor of the building situated at 33- C Old Ballygunge, 1st Lane, P.O. Ballygunge, P.S. Karaya, Kolkata -700019, at a monthly rent as noted in the petition. The induction of the petitioner was by virtue of an agreement dated

25th September, 2000.

3. The petitioner’s case further proceeds on the premise that the petitioner though was inducted by Amiya Kumar Banerjee, after the demise of said Amiya Kumar Banerjee, the petitioner had been paying rental to Sanchari Banerjee, the granddaughter of Amiya Kumar Banerjee. Still later, after 2008, when Sanchari Banerjee refused to accept the monthly rent, the petitioner had been depositing the monthly rent before the Rent Controller, Kolkata.

4. The petitioner claims to have been carrying on a business of beauty parlour in the name of M/s Dignity Unisex Beauty Parlour, and has requisite permission in the form of certificate of enlistment issued by the municipal authorities. The petitioner’s case further proceeds on the premise that after the private respondent became the co-owner in respect of the aforesaid property in the year

2021, the private respondent had lodged a complaint with the municipal authorities under Section 400(1) of the said Act and following the above, a proceeding was held on 20th September, 2022. Ultimately by an order dated 9th November, 2022, passed by the Special Officer (Building), Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the retention of the beauty parlour on payment of necessary fees, also removal of sheds on open space as marked in the D sketch within thirty days from the date of communication of the order was directed. According to the petitioner, the private respondents had since filed two writ petitions, being WPA 9919 of 2022 and WPA 22366 of 2022. The first writ petition, being WPA 9919 of 2022 was directed against the police authorities, which was disposed of by an order dated 13th February, 2023 thereby recording the fact that the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent is civil in nature. Insofar as the second writ petition, being WPA 22366 of 2022 is concerned, the same pertains to inaction on the part of the municipal authorities. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 22nd November, 2022, by directing the respondent no.6 to take steps in terms of the order dated 9th November, 2022.

5. Although, an appeal was filed from such order, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was, inter alia, pleased to dispose of the said appeal by noting that an appeal has been filed from the order of retention and also by observing that the occupants of the building must be given access to the water reservoir which caters to the requirements of such occupants. Accordingly, Kolkata Municipal Corporation was directed to hold local inspection