Authority: Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 12 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – legal heirs of the deceased Sri Bimal Kumar Ghosh (represented by Sri Biplab Ghosh and others); Respondents – Indian Overseas Bank and others.
  • Original dispute arose from two lease deeds executed by the original plaintiff (Bimal Kumar Ghosh) in 2005: (i) Lease Deed dated 28 Feb 2005 (Deed No.718) for 4,375 sq ft on the first floor of “Joydeep” building, Siliguri, for use as the Bank’s branch; (ii) Lease Deed dated 12 Jun 2005 (Deed No.781) for 90 sq ft on the ground floor for an ATM.
  • Tenure: first lease – 10 years (6 Dec 2003 to 5 Dec 2013); second lease – 15 years (4 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2020).
  • The appellants filed Title Suit No.7427 of 2016 (renumbered Title Suit No.17 of 2016) on behalf of themselves and their father seeking eviction, mesne profits, arrears of enhanced rent, waiver of loan interest, and damages. The trial judge dismissed the suit on 19 Sep 2022.
  • The appellants contended that the trial judge erred by treating the Bank’s continued possession after lease expiry as a lawful holding‑over because rent was accepted, arguing instead that the Bank was a tenant at sufferance and that the appellants had repeatedly issued quit notices and demanded enhanced rent.
  • Key legal authorities cited: Govind Impex (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Deptt. (2011), Sarup Singh Gupta v. S. Jagdish Singh (2006), Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. Sudera Realty (2023), Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2022), and provisions of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
  • Evidence included letters dated 28 May 2013 (notice to vacate by 6 Jan 2014), subsequent correspondence (July 2014, May 2015, July 2014, etc.) showing the appellants’ insistence on vacating and on market‑rate occupation charges, and a lease deed dated 23 Mar 2015 showing the Bank paying Rs.1,31,040 per month for 2,730 sq ft, implying a market rent of Rs.48 per sq ft.
  • The Bank admitted vacating the premises on 4 May 2016 and expressed willingness to pay enhanced rent arrears, but the trial judge held that acceptance of rent amounted to consent to holding‑over.

Final Outcome

  • The appellate court set aside the 19 Sep 2022 decree and allowed the appeal.
  • Decree for mesne profits: Rs.30,45,000 for the Schedule‑A property (2187.5 sq ft × Rs.48 per sq ft × 29 months).
  • Decree for enhanced rent arrears: Rs.2,11,106.25 (Schedule‑A arrears Rs.1,96,875 + Schedule‑B arrears Rs.14,231.25), calculated at a 15 % increase over original rent for the respective lease periods.
  • The Bank must pay the total amount within ninety (90) days from the date of the order.
  • In case of default, interest at 6 % per annum will accrue from the 91st day until actual payment.
  • The application for additional evidence (CAN 2 of 2025) is disposed of, and a formal decree will be drawn up. No order as to costs.

Topics: Lease Dispute, Mesne Profits, Enhanced Rent Arrears