Libertatem Magazine

High Court of Calcutta Settles Matters Regarding the Dispute of Tenancy and Rent.

Contents of this Page


The petitioner has filed a revision petition against the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Courts regarding subletting and causing substantial damage to the suit premises. The court passed half of the decision in favor of the petitioner and the rest dismissing the admission for the same.

Facts of the case

The plaintiffs filed the above-mentioned suit on the grounds of default of payment of rent, reasonable requirement for the extension of their business, subletting, and causing substantial damage. The learned Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 30th June 2007 decree suit holding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs were able to prove their case on the same grounds.

Arguments made on behalf of the Plaintiff

The learned Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the defendants have parted with possession of a portion of the suit premises in favor of one Laxmidhar Bhunia and sublet the same for opening a pan shop (betel shop) without the consent of Plaintiff. It is also pleaded by the Plaintiffs that the defendants caused addition and alteration and substantial damage to the suit premises without the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiffs.

Arguments made on behalf of the Respondent

The learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent stated that For-profit in income the said Uma Sankar Agarwala started a pan shop (betel shop) in the roadside wall space of his tenancy with the knowledge and consent of the previous landlord. One Laxmidhar Bhunia was appointed by the said Uma Sankar Agarwala as an employee to look after the said business. It is also pleaded by the defendants that the said Uma Sankar Agarwala filed a suit against Laxmidhar Bhunia treating him as license and for his eviction.

The decision of the court

After examining the evidence produced and arguments made by both sides the court stated that the filing of the suit by Uma Sankar Agarwala and countersuit by Laxmidhar is ample proof in support of exclusive possession of the said betel shop by Laxmidhar. A substantial question of defendants are guilty of subletting without adhering to the legal principle is decided against the appellants and in favor of the plaintiff.

Click here to read the judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author