Srimatya Pusparani Maity And Ors AMIT BARAN DASH vs SUBAL KUMAR SAU AND ORS — SAT/109/2026

Case under Transfer of Property Act ,1882 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 19th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 05-May-2026

CNR: WBCHCA0198002026

Filing Number

SAT/112/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

SAT/109/2026

Registration Date

27-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Title Declaration ( 51 )

Judicial Branch

STAMP REPORTER (SR) SECTION

Decision Date

19-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Transfer of Property Act ,1882 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Srimatya Pusparani Maity And Ors AMIT BARAN DASH

  2. 2.SUMAN KALYAN MAITY

  3. 3.SUJIT KALYAN MAITY

  4. 4.ALPANA MAITY

  5. 5.SUBHARUN MAITY

  6. 6.SUJIT KALYAN MAITY

  7. 7.ALPANA MAITY

  8. 8.SUBHARUN MAITY

  9. 9.SUDIP KALYAN MAITY

  10. 10.SUKIRAN MAITY

  11. 11.SURANJANA MAITY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUBAL KUMAR SAU AND ORS

  2. 2.SANJAY KUMAR SAU

  3. 3.SUNIL KUMAR SAU

  4. 4.BANDANA GIRI

  5. 5.ANINDITA ADAK

  6. 6.CHANDANA MAITI NEE PATRA

  7. 7.ARNAB JANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,hon'ble Justice Biswaroop ChowdhuryView PDF

  3. 19-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,hon'ble Justice Biswaroop ChowdhuryView PDF

    Case Summary: SAT 109/2026 The court dismissed the appellants' challenge to an eviction suit based on lease expiry. The appellants contended that a 1996 compromise decree (solenama) novated the original 1994 lease deed, thereby altering its terms and triggering renewal rights. The court rejected this, finding the 1996 decree constituted merely an amendment to the 1994 lease, not a substitute contract, and held no unfettered renewal rights existed under either document. The lower courts' concurrent factual findings supported eviction on lease expiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 18-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,hon'ble Justice Biswaroop ChowdhuryView PDF

  5. 18-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,hon'ble Justice Biswaroop ChowdhuryView PDF

  6. 05-May-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

  7. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. SAT/109/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: SAT 109/2026 The court dismissed the appellants' challenge to an eviction suit based on lease expiry. The appellants contended that a 1996 compromise decree (solenama) novated the original 1994 lease deed, thereby altering its terms and triggering renewal rights. The court rejected this, finding the 1996 decree constituted merely an amendment to the 1994 lease, not a substitute contract, and held no unfettered renewal rights existed under either document. The lower courts' concurrent factual findings supported eviction on lease expiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case