Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Bhola Sonkar Vs Anirban Sengupta — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Calcutta HC
2025
Bhola Sonkar Vs Anirban SenguptaBhola Sonkar v. Anirban Sengupta

Dismissed¶¶16

Bhola Sonkar v. Anirban Sengupta

Calcutta HC24 Nov 2025CO/3895/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.O. No. 3895 of 2025, decided 24.11.2025 by Shampa Sarkar, J.; tenant's revision against rent fixation at Rs. 3000/- per month; Section 7(2) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997; quantum of rent dispute (admitted rent Rs. 1000/-, claimed enhanced rent Rs. 4000/-, asserted rate Rs. 50 per sq ft); defaulter of rent March, 2022 to September, 2024; arrear rent in three instalments; duty to prove rate of rent last paid; no rent receipt produced; premises in Bhawanipur market next to Municipal road, beauty parlour adjacent, vibrant commercial area; no perversity, adequate reasons; superintending power of High Court; revisional application dismissed, no order as to costs; Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipore, Other Suit no. 48 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

Considering the position of the suit premises in a vibrant commercial area, with a beauty parlour shop just adjacent to it, the fixation of the rent at Rs. 3000/- is upheld.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Quantum of rent payable by the petitioner/tenant: whether the rent fixed by the learned trial court at Rs. 3000/- per month was excessive, given the petitioner's claim that the admitted rent was Rs. 1000/- and the plaintiff/landlord's claim of enhancement to Rs. 4000/-. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the position of the suit premises in a vibrant commercial area, with a beauty parlour shop just adjacent to it, the fixation of the rent at Rs. 3000/- is upheld.

Ratio / Principle

No perversity is found in the order of the learned trial court, which has given adequate reasons.

Key takeaways

It was the petitioner's duty to prove the rate of rent last paid before the suit was filed; having raised the dispute on quantum, the petitioner failed to establish that Rs. 1000/- was the rent fixed, while the plaintiff's case all along was that Rs. 4000/- was paid up to March, 2021.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional application (C.O. No. 3895 of 2025) against the order dated 12.11.2024 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipore in Other Suit no. 48 of 2022, whereby the tenant was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as rent and to deposit the entire arrear rent (March, 2022 to September, 2024) in three instalments, acting under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Neither party could prove the exact rent payable: the petitioner claimed an admitted rent of Rs. 1000/- but failed to establish the rate of rent last paid; the landlord claimed enhancement to Rs. 4000/- but produced no rent receipt. The trial court considered the location and nature of the premises (market area next to the Municipal road, beauty parlour adjacent, vibrant commercial area) and deemed Rs. 3000/- reasonable. The Court found no perversity in the order and held that adequate reasons were given; the revisional application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

A

24.11.2025 Ct. No. 06 Sl. No.3 skg

C.O. No. 3895 of 2025

Bhola Sonkar Vs. Anirban Sengupta

Mr. Debasis Mitra, Mr. Priya Chakraborty, Mr. Diptonil Dey, …..for the petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12^th November, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipore in Other Suit no. 48 of 2022. By the order impugned, the learned court directed the tenant to pay Rs.3000/- per month as rent, inter alia, holding that the tenant was a defaulter of rent between March, 2022 to September, 2024. Accordingly, the entire arrear rent was directed to be deposited in three instalments and the petitioner was further directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the landlord via account transfer or through court with effect from October, 2024.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was occupying 100 square feet room and as such the rent assured by the learned court cannot be Rs.3000/-. The admitted rent is Rs.1000/-.

According to the plaint case, the agreed rent was fixed at Rs.4000/- upon enhancement from Rs.1000/- and

2

such payment of rent at Rs.4000 per month was made up to March, 2021.

Although the petitioner raised a dispute with regard to the quantum of rent, the petitioner was not in a position to prove the exact rent that was fixed and payable. The plaintiff/landlord claimed that the rent had been enhanced to Rs.4000/-, but could not produce rent receipt. In such view of the matter, the learned court decided that in the absence of any receipt, consideration of the location and nature of the premises should be taken into account and upon such consideration, Rs. 3000/- was deemed to be the rent. The location of the property was in Bhawanipur market, next to the Municipal road.

The superintending power of the High Court has been invoked to assert that Rs.3000/- is excessive and shall cause hardship to the petitioner. That the rent should be sufficiently reduced. The petitioner raised the dispute with regard to the quantum of rent and invited the learned trial court to decide the actual rate of rent, including the arrears. It was the petitioner’s duty to prove the rate of rent last paid, before the suit was filed. The petitioner has failed to establish that Rs.1000/- was the rent fixed. The plaintiff’s case has all along been that Rs.4000/- was being paid up to March, 2021. Moreover the plaintiff has stated that the

3

property is in a market place and the rent is Rs. 50 per sq ft.

Under such circumstances, the learned Court exercise discretion. By virtue of the power conferred upon the court Under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the court accepted evidence of both the parties. The parties could not prove the exact rent payable. Thus, the court found, Rs. 3000/- to be reasonable rent, from all the attending circumstances.

Under such circumstances, considering the position of the property and that there is a beauty parlour shop just adjacent to the suit premises, meaning that the property was in a vibrant commercial area, the amount was fixed at Rs.3000. I do not find any perversity in the order of the learned Court has given adequate reasons.

The revisional application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Parties are to act on the server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Quantum of rent payable by the petitioner/tenant: whether the rent fixed by the learned trial court at Rs. 3000/- per month was excessive, given the petitioner's claim that the admitted rent was Rs. 1000/- and the plaintiff/landlord's claim of enhancement to Rs. 4000/-.¶¶6
The court held
Considering the position of the suit premises in a vibrant commercial area, with a beauty parlour shop just adjacent to it, the fixation of the rent at Rs. 3000/- is upheld.ratio¶¶15
2.
Whether the impugned order fixing rent at Rs. 3000/- per month suffers from perversity such as to warrant interference by the High Court under its superintending/revisional jurisdiction.¶¶11
The court held
No perversity is found in the order of the learned trial court, which has given adequate reasons.ratio¶¶15

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997Section 7(2)¶¶14

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12th November, 2024 in Other Suit no. 48 of 2022 directing the tenant to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as rent, holding the tenant a defaulter of rent between March, 2022 to September, 2024; the entire arrear rent was directed to be deposited in three instalments and Rs. 3000/- was made payable monthly to the landlord via account transfer or through court from October, 2024.¶¶5
Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipore · 12th November, 2024
Prior proceeding
Tenancy/rent suit being Other Suit no. 48 of 2022 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipore, in which the impugned rent-fixation order was passed.¶¶5
Prior proceeding
Present revisional application instituted by the petitioner invoking the superintending power of the High Court to challenge the rent fixed at Rs. 3000/- as excessive.¶¶11

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Bhola Sonkar¶¶3
Debasis Mitra, Priya Chakraborty, Diptonil Dey
respondent
Anirban Sengupta¶¶3

Coram

AI extract

Shampa Sarkarauthor¶¶18

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Calcutta HC
Decided on: 24 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 10 Nov 2025
Case no.: CO/3895/2025
CNR: WBCHCA0516412025
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: C.O.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Shampa Sarkar

Sujay Kumar Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.
21 Nov 2025
Nityadhara Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Moslem Molla and Ors.
21 Nov 2025
Bapi Jana Vs Sekh Yeasin
21 Nov 2025
Shiv Prasad Dubey Vs Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Ors.
24 Nov 2025
Saurav Jaiswal Vs Kavita Jaiswal
24 Nov 2025
Uttam Kumar Gupta Vs Apurba Ghosh Roy
24 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

Bhola Sonkar v. Anirban Sengupta, CO/3895/2025 (CAL), decided on 24 November 2025.

The Calcutta High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997Section 7(2)

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 12th November, 2024 in Other Suit no. 48 of 2022 directing the tenant to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as rent, holding the tenant a defaulter of rent between March, 2022 to September, 2024; the entire arrear rent was directed to be deposited in three instalments and Rs. 3000/- was made payable monthly to the landlord via account transfer or through court from October, 2024.Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipore · 12th November, 2024
Tenancy/rent suit being Other Suit no. 48 of 2022 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipore, in which the impugned rent-fixation order was passed.
Present revisional application instituted by the petitioner invoking the superintending power of the High Court to challenge the rent fixed at Rs. 3000/- as excessive.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Shampa Sarkar

Parties & counsel