Authority: Calcutta High Court, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

Order Date: 20 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Sailendra Nath Mukherjee (Petitioner) vs. Punjab National Bank (Respondent) & Ors.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Constitutional writ petition (WPA No. 3222 of 2026) seeking direction for payment of arrears of rent, interest, GST, K.M.C. Tax and surcharges.
  • Background:
  • On 25 February 2013, a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and United Bank of India (erstwhile) for the entire first floor of premises No. 168/D, Keshab Chandra Sen Street, Kolkata‑700009, covering 3309 sq ft at a monthly rent of Rs 40 per sq ft, with a renewal option for five years.
  • The lease expired on 30 September 2022. On 23 September 2022, the petitioner requested renewal with rent revision to Rs 40 per sq ft.
  • The bank proposed surrendering 1868 sq ft (road‑side portion) and retaining 1441 sq ft for its banking business at the same rent rate. A letter dated 20 March 2023 confirmed acceptance of the revised rent for the retained portion.
  • On 10 April 2024, a new lease deed was executed for the 1441 sq ft area, effective from 1 March 2024, at Rs 40 per sq ft per month inclusive of GST, K.M.C. Tax and surcharges.
  • Petitioner’s Claim:
  • Alleged non‑payment of rent for the entire 3309 sq ft from 1 October 2022 to 25 September 2024, amounting to Rs 13,62,759, plus interest at 12% per annum, resulting in a total claim of Rs 17,93,817.
  • The petitioner sent a notice on 2 December 2025; the bank allegedly did not comply.
  • Bank’s Defence:
  • Argues that the dispute is a contractual matter, not maintainable under writ jurisdiction (Article 226).
  • Contends that the rent of Rs 40 per sq ft is applicable only from 1 March 2024 for the retained 1441 sq ft, and that the arrears for the period prior to the new lease are not admitted.
  • Cites precedents (e.g., M/s Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise & Taxation Comm.) to support the view that purely contractual disputes are outside writ jurisdiction.
  • Precedent Cited by Petitioner:
  • Pradip Dhar v. United Bank of India (WPA 13468 of 2019, 29 August 2024) – writ petition held maintainable and bank directed to pay dues.
  • Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association (MANU/SC/0670/2026) – private bodies performing public functions are amenable to judicial review.
  • Bhatpara Municipality v. Mayank Enterprise (AIR 2026 Cal 185) – once a bill is admitted and partially paid, remaining amount cannot be denied.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The lease renewal agreement dated 10 April 2024, effective 1 March 2024, clearly defines rent obligations for the retained 1441 sq ft only from that date.
  • The petitioner’s claim for arrears from 1 October 2022 to 25 September 2024 is a disputed question of fact, as the bank disputes the applicability of the Rs 40 per sq ft rate for the period before the new lease.
  • Established jurisprudence holds that when a factual dispute exists, a writ court cannot adjudicate; the matter must be referred to a civil court.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the writ petition (WPA 3222 of 2026) on the ground that it involves a disputed question of fact beyond the jurisdiction of the writ court.
  • The dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from instituting appropriate civil proceedings to recover the claimed arrears of rent.
  • Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of the order available on the Court’s official website; certified copies can be obtained upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Lease Dispute, Writ Jurisdiction