[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Arindam Ghosh vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation And ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
OD-1
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO/99/2025
IA NO:GA/1/2026
ARINDAM GHOSH
-VS-
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
And
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Date: 17.02.2026.
Mr. S. Banerjee, Adv.; Mr. S. Roy, Adv.; Mr. S. Patra, Adv., for appellant.
Mr. A.K. Ghosh, Adv.; Mr. D. Chakraborty, Adv., for KMC.
Mr. S. Bose, Adv.; Mr. P.B. Mullick, Adv.; Mr. S. Rout, Adv., for R-7&8.
1. The Court: The subject appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
November 7, 2025, passed by a Single Bench of this Court.
2. The short question for consideration before the Single Bench as also before this
Court is as to whether the landlord is entitled to seek an amalgamation of an
otherwise healthy premises with a dilapidated and dangerous premises in the
teeth of a notice under section 412A of the KMC Act, 1980.
3. Admittedly, premises no.80 & 81, Bentinck Street, Kolkata, has been declared as
a dangerous premises by the KMC sometime in the year 2019. The appellant-writ
2
petitioner claims to be a tenant and occupier of a portion of the said dangerous
premises. Admittedly, the KMC has demolished most of the dangerous portions.
4. In the backdrop of repeated litigations between the appellant-tenant and the
landlord, time has been granted by Benches of this Court and the KMC to the
landlord-respondent to submit a scheme for restoration of the premises and
rehabilitation of the tenants.
5. Sometime in November 2021, the landlord, with a view to maximize his interest
and benefit from the property, sought amalgamation of a neighbouring property
at no.1A, Grant Land, with premises no.80 & 81, Bentinck Street. Admittedly,
premises no.1A, Grant Lane is a healthy building with several tenants. Such
amalgamation was ordered and allowed by the KMC sometime on January 22,
2022. The two premises are now renumbered 80, Bentinck Street, Kolkata.
6. Pursuant to the amalgamation, a construction plan for demolition of the two old
structures and for construction of a comprehensive new structure has been
placed before the KMC. No objection certificates have been obtained from all
concerned authorities except, however, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
The same is pending.
7. This Court is of the view that a proposal for amalgamation of two municipal
premises under section 178 of the KMC Act cannot and does not militate against
a proposed scheme under section 412A of the said Act.
8. It is in the backdrop of the above that the Single Bench was of the view that the
writ petition filed by the appellant could not have been entertained by Court and
was thus dismissed. This Court is in complete agreement with the view
expressed by the Single Bench.
9. As already stated herein above, the landlords suffer for low income from
tenancies granted in their premises and are unable to exploit their properties. It
is equally true that lawful tenancies are required to be protected and one of the
ways of doing so is under section 412A of the said Act where dilapidated
buildings are neglected by landlords to the peril of the tenants.
10. A harmonious reading of section 178 with section 412A of the said Act is in the
interest of the landlord as well as the tenants.
11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the landlord and the KMC
must take urgent and expeditious steps to construct a fresh premises at the said
amalgamated new 80, Bentinck Street, Kolkata, since premises no.1A, Grant
Lane, has been merged into it. Needless to mention, the interest of all tenants
must be secured and accommodated in the newly constructed building.
12. It is in the interest of the tenants and the occupants of the old premises that they
cooperate with the landlord to ensure that a new premises comes up
expeditiously.
13. Mr. Banerjee has prayed is for specifying a timeframe within which the landlord
would construct the premises and restore the extent occupied by the erstwhile
tenants in the new building. It is difficult for this Court to stipulate the same.
However, the private respondent-landlord shall make sincere efforts to obtain
expeditious clearances from all authorities.
14. In the event, however, construction of the new premises does not start within 18
months, it would be open to the appellant and other tenants and occupiers to
seek remedies in accordance with law against the landlord.
15. With the aforesaid observations, APO/99/2025 along with the connected
application stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
tk
