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

CASE DISPOSED

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

Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N

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

02-03-2026

APPEALS FROM DECREE

Orders

25-03-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case