Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Decree, Dismisses Tenant’s Appeal

In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the eviction decree passed on July 10, 2013, by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court against the appellant. The court held that the plaintiff’s case cannot fail solely because no notice was issued to the appellant for the production of the original lease deed.

Brief Facts:

The appellant, who was a tenant under the respondent, contested the eviction decree, arguing that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, rather than the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, should apply. The main contention was that the original deed of lease was not marked as an exhibit, and no notice was issued for its production during the trial.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant’s counsel argued that the original lease deed was not properly presented or marked as an exhibit, and no notice was issued for its production. The appellant also claimed that they were willing to renew the lease but faced non-cooperation from the respondent.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondent’s counsel contended that the appellant, as the custodian of the original lease deed, should have produced it. They noted that a certified copy of the lease deed was authenticated and produced without objection. The respondents argued that the appellant was introducing new arguments on appeal that were not raised during the trial.

Observations of the Court:

The court emphasized that appellate interference is warranted only when the trial court’s judgment is materially defective and would result in gross injustice if not corrected. The court found no such defects in the trial court’s judgment. It noted that while no notice was issued for the original lease deed, a certified copy authenticated by an officer of the appellant was produced without objection. The court concluded that the absence of the original deed did not prejudice the appellant, as they had the opportunity to produce it but did not do so.

Decision of the Court:

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment.

Case Title: UOI & Ors. vs. The Kusum Commercial Co. Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee and Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
Case No.: F.A.T. 16 of 2014
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee

For ongoing updates and detailed coverage of legal and social issues, visit Kanishk Social Media. If you found this article informative, please share it with others interested in legal and social justice developments.