SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3388

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
MADAN CHANDRA HALDER – Appellant
Versus
ALOKE RANJAN AICH BHOWMICK – Respondent
SAT 26 / 2026



##PAGE1##

D/L.7.

May 20, 2026.

.

MNS

SAT No. 26 of 2026

+

CAN 1 of 2026

Madan Chandra Halder

Vs.

Aloke Ranjan Aich Bhowmick

Md. Mokaram Hossain,

Mr. Mizanur Rahaman,

Mr. Karnab Biswas, Advs.

… for the appellant.

Mr. Prasanta Bishal

…for the respondent.

1. Insofar as the report of the Additional Stamp Reporter

regarding the valuation of the matter not being

ascertainable is concerned, it transpires from the copy

of the plaint, which is annexed to CAN 1 of 2026, that

the valuation has been correctly depicted in the

memorandum of appeal. Hence, it is deemed that such

defect stands cured.

2. The certified copies of the trial court’s judgment and

decree are filed by learned counsel for the appellant in

Court today, which are tagged with the record.

3. Thus, the defect in that regard also stands cured.

4. Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for

the appellant to carry out the necessary amendments

to the memorandum of appeal to cure the other defects

pointed out by the Additional Stamp Reporter.

##PAGE2##

2

5. The present appeal has been preferred against a

judgment of reversal.

6. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction

of the defendant/appellant.

7. The learned trial Judge proceeded to dismiss the suit

by holding that although the defendant had admitted

the plaintiff as his landlord, no document regarding

ownership was produced by the plaintiff in respect of

the subject property. It was further held that merely

with the service of eviction notice upon the defendant

by the plaintiff being proved and admission on the part

of the defendant regarding the plaintiff being his

landlord, the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be

granted.

8. The learned trial Judge also framed issues on whether

the defendant/appellant was guilty of default in

payment of rent and/or whether the plaintiff had

personal requirement for the suit property, proceeding

on the premise that the suit was instituted under the

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

9. The learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings

of the learned trial Judge on the premise that since the

suit property did not come within the Kolkata Municipal

Corporation area or the Howrah Municipal Corporation

area and/or any other Municipal area, in terms of the

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the said Act

was not applicable.

##PAGE3##

3

10. By default, the learned First Appellate Court held that

the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applicable.

11. On a perusal of the plaint annexed to the injunction

application filed in connection with the present appeal,

we find that the suit was preceded by an ejectment

notice, which was described to be under Section 106 of

the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and mentioned to be

so in paragraph no. 3 of the plaint itself.

12. From the frame of the suit, it is evident that the same

was filed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on

the strength of Section 106 of the same, and not under

the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

13. The learned trial Judge proceeded on the palpably

erroneous legal premise that the subject property, as

well as the suit, was governed by the 1997 Act.

14. Moreover, the learned trial Judge, after holding that the

defendant/appellant had admitted that the

plaintiff/respondent was his landlord/lessor, had no

other option but to grant eviction, since it was also held

by the learned trial Judge that the service of the

eviction notice, which was issued under Section 106 of

the 1882 Act, was proved.

15. Thus, the learned First Appellate Court rightly reversed

the decision of the trial Court and granted eviction

decree on the ground of Section 106 of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882.

16. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the impugned

judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.

##PAGE4##

4

17. Accordingly, SAT No. 26 of 2026 is dismissed under

Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

18. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 is dismissed as well.

19. There will be no order as to costs.

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top