Appeal dismissed against the Appellate Tribunal's order on fair rent fixation for non-production of agreements exceeding limitation. Related interconnections also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
4th August, 2021 WPLRT 21 of 2020 with CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 2633 of 2020) With CAN 2 of 2020 CAN 3 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) (5) Subhendu Sinha Roy (BD) -vs(M.Ali) Swapan Chakraborty Mr. Kushal Chatterjee Mr. Abhik Sarkar … for the petitioner. Mr. Sondip Ghosh Mr. Asim Chatterjee Mr. Subrata Das Mr. Debayan Ghosh … for the Repondent.
This writ petition is arising out of an order dated 7th August, 2019 in OA No. 2102 of 2016 in connection with an application filed for fixation of fair rent. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal is under consideration.
Before us, it is contended that two agreements which are now being disclosed in CAN 2633 of 2020 are necessary for the purpose of assessing the fair rent of the tenanted property. The said documents were neither before the Rent Controller nor before the appellate authority. Apart from being unable to offer any explanation for not producing the said agreements before the Rent Controller and the learned Tribunal, it prima facie appears to us that those documents are inadequate to arrive at any conclusion that the premises to which
2
reference have been made in the said two agreements are similarly placed or situated with all other conditions if were existing in so far as the present premises are concerned.
On such consideration, we are unable to rely upon the said two documents for the purpose of assessing the merit of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. We find no merit in this writ petition.
The writ petition stands dismissed. In view of the aforesaid dismissal CAN 2 of 2020 and CAN 3 of 2020 are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
( Soumen Sen, J.)
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The affidavit of service showing that the service on the respondent no………… has been served. The affidavit of service is kept on record. The tracking report showing service on the respondent no. 2 has not been received by the petitioner as on date.
(Moushumi Bhattacharya J.)
Subhendu Sinha Roy (BD)
Swapan Chakraborty
M. Ali
Soumen Sen
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Moushumi Bhattacharya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
