Calcutta High Court
SAT/79/2026 of BHOLA RAJAK @ RANJIT RAJAK AND ANR. Vs PUSPA RANI KARMAKAR AND ORS. on 17 August 2026
17, 2026. MNS. SAT No. 79 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 Bhola Rajak @ Ranjit Rajak and another Vs. Puspa Rani Karmakar and others Syed Arif Ahmed, Adv. … for the appellants. Ms. Sulekha Mitra, Mr. Manas Kumar Das, Advs. …for the respondents. 1. The present Second Appeal has been
D/L. 21.
August 17, 2026.
MNS.
SAT No. 79 of 2026
+
CAN 1 of 2026
Bhola Rajak @ Ranjit Rajak and another
Vs.
Puspa Rani Karmakar and others
Syed Arif Ahmed, Adv.
… for the appellants.
Ms. Sulekha Mitra,
Mr. Manas Kumar Das, Advs.
…for the respondents.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby both the courts below decreed the eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents on the ground of issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short “the 1882 Act”).
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the notice-in-question was one alleging default in payment of rent and not an eviction notice.
3. In the absence of any proof with regard to default as alleged in the notice, the courts below acted without jurisdiction in decreeing the suit.
4. Although learned counsel for the appellants fails to hand over any copy of the notice-in-question or the plaint, on our request, learned counsel for the respondents hands over such copies to the Court.
5. Contrary to the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants that the suit was one for declaration and eviction, we find that the suit was one for eviction simpliciter.
6. From the notice dated January 24, 2017, which was premise of the findings of both the courts and was duly averred in paragraph no. 7 of the plaint, we find that clear fifteen days’ quit notice was given, as envisaged under Section 106 of the 1882 Act.
7. As per the language of the said provision as well as settled law, a notice of fifteen days is sufficient to obtain an eviction of the lessee within the contemplation of Section 106 of the 1882 Act.
8. No further default on the part of the lessee is required to be proved if the notice itself is duly proved before the courts.
9. Thus, although certain superfluous allegations of default in rent etc. were incorporated in the notice, fact remains that the notice asked the lessees to vacate the suit premises within clear fifteen days, thus, coming within the purview of Section 106(1) of the 1882 Act.
10. In such view of the matter, we do not find any error either on law or fact in the courts below granting an eviction decree on such ground.
11. Thus, no substantial question is involved.
12. Accordingly, SAT No. 79 of 2026 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
13. CAN 1 of 2026 is consequentially dismissed as well.
14. There will be no order as to costs.
15. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sandip Kumar De, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)