DWARIKA PRASAD BISWAKARMA vs DRAUPADI LOSALKA

A D – 13
Ct No.16
01.09.2026
(SSS)
SAT 76 of 2026
with
CAN 1 of 2026
Dwarika Prasad Biswakarma
Vs.
Smt. Draupadi Losalka
Mr. Kartick Kr. Bhattacharya,
Mr. Tirtha Pati Acharya,
Ms. Soumashree Dutta,
Ms. Papiya Naskar
....for the appellant.
1. The present second appeal has been preferred
against a judgment of affirmance, whereby both
the Courts below have passed a decree of eviction
against the defendant/appellant on the ground of
default in payment of rent as well as reasonable
requirement.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
argues that initially the suit for eviction was
dismissed for default and subsequently restored.
In the interregnum, instead of making payments
of rent directly to the landlord, the payments were
continued to be made by the appellant in

2
connection with the dismissed suit, which were
subsequently treated to be bad deposits,
consequentially holding the appellant to be a
defaulter in payment of rent. As an outcome
thereof, the defence of the appellant was struck
off under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises
Tenancy Act, 1997. It is submitted that in view of
the said deposits being continued to be made
bona fide , both the Courts below erred in law in
construing the deposits as bad deposits and
adjudging the appellant to be a defaulter within
the contemplation of Section 6 of the 1997 Act.
3. Insofar as the landlord’s requirement is
concerned, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that no proof of the capacity or necessity
to run a business was furnished on the part of the
plaintiff/respondent. Despite such absence of
proof, the Courts below granted eviction also on
the ground of requirement of the plaintiff to run a
business in the suit premises, which was perverse
in nature.
4. However, we find from the materials before us
and also from the arguments of the appellant, that
neither of the said grounds are tenable in the eye
of law.
5. Insofar as the deposits of amount equivalent to
rent are concerned, since those were not made in

3
consonance with the appropriate provisions of the
1997 Act, we do not find any legal error in the
Courts construing such deposits to be invalid and
consequentially striking out the defence of the
defendant/appellant.
6. Regarding the requirement of the landlord, it is
settled law that the plaintiff/landlord is not
required to furnish detailed evidence in support of
his/her capacity to run a business merely to
substantiate the requirement of a tenanted
premises for the purpose of starting a business
thereat. In any event, it is an admitted position
that the suit premises was being run for
commercial purposes by the appellant and as
such, the said premises is obviously viable for
business otherwise.
7. Thus, on the evidence which is already on
record, we do not find any legal error in both the
Courts below coming to the concurrent finding
that the plaintiff/respondent reasonably requires
the suit premises.
8. In such view of the matter, no substantial
question of law is made out.
9. Accordingly, SAT 76 of 2026 is dismissed
under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.

4
10. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 stands
dismissed as well.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
12. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order,
if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon
compliance of requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
(Sandip Kumar De, J.)