NAND LAL RATHI SUMIT BISWAS vs M/S. A.T. GOOYEE ENTERPRISES — APDT /4/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 25th March 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0006802026
Filing Number
APDT /4/2026
Filing Date
21-02-2026
Registration No
APDT /4/2026
Registration Date
21-02-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Bench Type
Division Bench
Judicial Branch
APPEAL SECTION
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NAND LAL RATHI SUMIT BISWAS
Respondent(s)
M/S. A.T. GOOYEE ENTERPRISES
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
APPEALS FROM DECREE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-03-2026 | APPEALS FROM DECREE |
Orders
Court Decision Summary The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the tenant Nand Lal Rathi's appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment that he was a tenant under a valid lease deed dated April 1, 2004, and upholding the landlord's eviction decree. The court rejected the appellant's contentions that the lease deed was abandoned in favor of a monthly tenancy and that the lessor's identity was unclear due to name variations (Goyee vs. Gooyee), finding sufficient evidence that both parties treated these names interchangeably and acted upon the original lease agreement. The court further held that even if a monthly tenancy existed, it was validly terminated by a quit notice complying with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the tenant Nand Lal Rathi's appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment that he was a tenant under a valid lease deed dated April 1, 2004, and upholding the landlord's eviction decree. The court rejected the appellant's contentions that the lease deed was abandoned in favor of a monthly tenancy and that the lessor's identity was unclear due to name variations (Goyee vs. Gooyee), finding sufficient evidence that both parties treated these names interchangeably and acted upon the original lease agreement. The court further held that even if a monthly tenancy existed, it was validly terminated by a quit notice complying with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts