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
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
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
FOR ADMISSION
ORDER XLI RULE 11
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-12-2025 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 17-02-2026 | ORDER XLI RULE 11 |
Orders
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts