ARCHANA MAITY SALIL KUMAR MAITI vs DEBI PRASAD DAS — SAT/283/2025

Case under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act ,1956 Section N A. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 19th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0567832025

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

16th December 2025

Filing Number

SAT/281/2025

Filing Date

05-12-2025

Registration No

SAT/283/2025

Registration Date

06-12-2025

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

Miscellaneous ( 8 )

Judicial Branch

STAMP REPORTER (SR) SECTION

Decision Date

19th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act ,1956 Section N A

Petitioner(s)

ARCHANA MAITY SALIL KUMAR MAITI

Respondent(s)

DEBI PRASAD DAS

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY

16-12-2025

FOR ADMISSION

17-02-2026

ORDER XLI RULE 11

Orders

19-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY

Case Summary: SAT 283/2025 The court dismissed the tenant's second appeal challenging an eviction decree under Section 6(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The lower courts found subletting based on electoral rolls showing the tenant's permanent relocation to Haldia and a third party's occupation of the Kolkata property. The appellate court held that once a landlord establishes parting with possession, the burden shifts to the tenant to explain occupancy; proof of monetary consideration is not essential. Since the tenant provided no independent evidence while the plaintiff proved its case through oral testimony and documents, concurrent findings of fact could not be disturbed in second appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: SAT 283/2025 The court dismissed the tenant's second appeal challenging an eviction decree under Section 6(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The lower courts found subletting based on electoral rolls showing the tenant's permanent relocation to Haldia and a third party's occupation of the Kolkata property. The appellate court held that once a landlord establishes parting with possession, the burden shifts to the tenant to explain occupancy; proof of monetary consideration is not essential. Since the tenant provided no independent evidence while the plaintiff proved its case through oral testimony and documents, concurrent findings of fact could not be disturbed in second appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case