Saturday, November 22, 2025

WRITTEN NOTES OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / TENANT INDER CHAND AGARWALA

 

Before the Learned Rent Controller, Calcutta

Alipore Judges’ Court, Alipore, Kolkata – 700027

 

Application no. 5/ 35/ of 2021

 

In the matter of :

 

Shri Inder Chand Agarwala

Son of Late Sova Chand Agarwala, of premises being no. 1, Tarpan Ghat Road, Post Office & Police Station – Behala, Kolkata – 700 053, District – South 24 Parganas.

     ...........Tenant/ Petitioner

-Versus-

Police Station : Behala

1)   Sarbati Devi Agarwala Estate, having its Office at Premises being no. 1, Tarpan Ghat Road, Post Office and Police Station – Behala, Kolkata – 700 053, District – South 24 Parganas.

 

2)   Misri Devi Agarwala Estate, having its Office at Premises being no. 7, Rajani Sen Road, Kolkata – 700 026

 

..............Landlords / Respondents

 

WRITTEN NOTES OF ARGUMENT

ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / TENANT
INDER CHAND AGARWALA

 

1.   The present written notes of argument are filed on behalf of the Applicant/Tenant, Shri Inder Chand Agarwala, in support of the application seeking necessary repair of the suit premises presently under his lawful tenancy and occupation. The application has been filed bona fide and solely to preserve the tenanted premises, prevent further deterioration, and safeguard property and business interests that are threatened due to extensive structural damage as documented by the Learned Advocate Commissioner.

 

 

 

 

2.   It is an admitted and undisputed fact on record that the Applicant is a lawful tenant in respect of the suit premises. The rent is regularly paid and accepted without objection. There is no allegation of default, eviction proceeding, or breach of tenancy obligations. Therefore, the tenancy relationship, right of occupation, and right to peaceful use of the premises remain firmly established.

 

3.   The present application arises due to the dangerous, dilapidated and unusable condition of major portions of the tenanted premises, including the roofed shed, brick pillars, boundary wall, office room, staff room and main entrance gate. The condition of the property has deteriorated to such an extent that business operation is being hampered and goods cannot be safely stored. The Applicant has been compelled to seek the intervention of this Hon’ble Court as the respondents have failed and neglected to undertake necessary repairs despite repeated verbal requests.

 

4.   The Learned Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Hon’ble Court inspected the premises and submitted a detailed report dated 15-01-2025, which fully corroborates the Applicant’s stand. The report specifically records, inter alia, as follows;

 

“I was standing at the premises and saw / observed there was destroyed roofs shed and structure. I wandered throughout the total area thoroughly and observed there were so many bricks base pillar about 15 to 20 in number, which are now totally in a ruined destroyed condition i.e. all are in dilapidated condition, probable from this base roof shed structure was made, at present that roof shed is invisible. As a result goods and materials are being damaged, could not be stored due to sun ray, rain, storm, water etc. At present, major portion is unusable condition of this suit property. Hence, immediate restructuring is required, and also outer boundary wall, office room, staff room, entry iron and tin-based gate, all are in dilapidated conditions. Hence, repair and reconstructions are required. The entire area is under occupation of tenant / applicant.”

 

This independent factual assessment clearly establishes that urgent repair is essential and unavoidable.

 

5.   Due to the extensively damaged roof structure, missing roof sheet, decayed supporting pillars, and damaged gate and boundary wall, the Applicant is unable to securely stock goods or carry out normal business activity. Exposure to rain, heat and storm is directly causing financial loss and operational obstruction. Sections of the premises have become unsafe, posing risk to persons and property. The tenancy rights include the right to safe, usable space, which is currently compromised.

 

6.   Under established legal principles governing tenancy, the landlord has an obligation to maintain the main structural integrity of the premises. Repairs essential for continued use and protection of the tenancy are the landlord's responsibility. When the premises become unhabitable or commercially unusable due to structural decay, the tenant is entitled to seek legal direction compelling the landlord to perform necessary repair works.

 

7.   This Hon’ble Court possesses inherent power to protect tenancy rights and ensure that the premises remain reasonably suitable for the purpose for which it is let out. Where the landlord refuses or fails to undertake essential repairs despite demand and documented necessity, the Court may;

 

(a)    Direct the landlord to carry out repairs within a time-bound manner;

OR

(b)    Permit the tenant to execute repairs and seek adjustment of costs from future rent or reimbursement;

 

8.   The Applicant clarifies that the prayer is not for modification, extension, reconstruction or alteration of the premises. Only essential repairs necessary to restore the premises to usable condition are sought. No new structure, enhancement or unauthorized construction is prayed for. The intention is protection—not expansion—of tenancy rights.

 

9.   The Commissioner’s findings are clear, specific, detailed, and based on physical inspection. The damage is neither theoretical nor exaggerated. The report confirms immediate need for repair to prevent further decay and business loss. There is no contrary report or objection successfully disproving these findings.

 

10.                In light of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to;

 

1.              Allow the present application;

 

2.              Direct the Respondents to carry out necessary structural repairs within a time-bound schedule;

 

3.              Alternatively, permit the Applicant to undertake such repairs at his own cost, with liberty to adjust the repair expenditure from future rent or receive reimbursement; and

 

4.              Pass any other appropriate order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

 

Submitted by;


Counsel for the Applicant / Tenant

Inder Chand Agarwala

CASE & CITATION REFERENCES

 

Before the Learned Rent Controller, Calcutta

Alipore Judges’ Court, Alipore, Kolkata – 700027

 

Application no. 5/ 35/ of 2021

 

In the matter of :

 

Shri Inder Chand Agarwala

Son of Late Sova Chand Agarwala, of premises being no. 1, Tarpan Ghat Road, Post Office & Police Station – Behala, Kolkata – 700 053, District – South 24 Parganas.

     ...........Tenant/ Petitioner

-Versus-

Police Station : Behala

1)   Sarbati Devi Agarwala Estate, having its Office at Premises being no. 1, Tarpan Ghat Road, Post Office and Police Station – Behala, Kolkata – 700 053, District – South 24 Parganas.

 

2)   Misri Devi Agarwala Estate, having its Office at Premises being no. 7, Rajani Sen Road, Kolkata – 700 026

 

..............Landlords / Respondents

 

CASE & CITATION REFERENCES

ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / TENANT
INDER CHAND AGARWALA

 

No.

Case & Citation

Key Legal Principle

1

Somnath Mukherjee v. Mamata Rani Saha, Calcutta High Court, 3 Apr 2006

 

 

Held that Section 35 of the WBPT Act, 1997 is equivalent to Section 34 of the earlier Act, and that the remedy for repairs/essential services is available to tenant. Also discussed jurisdictional aspect of Controller vs Civil Court.

2

Mrinal Kanti Ghosh v. Mango Debi (“C.O. 1191 of 2012 with CAN 4955 of 2014”) – Calcutta High Court, 24 Feb 2015

 

Held that Section 35 of the WBPT Act, 1997 is equivalent to Section 34 of the earlier Act, and that the remedy for repairs/essential services is available to tenant. Also discussed jurisdictional aspect of Controller vs Civil Court.

 

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 72 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 SEEKING INITIATION OF PENAL ACTION FOR WILLFUL NON-COMPLIANCE OF FINAL ORDER

 

District : South Kolkata

Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata Unit-III
Tramline Building (First Floor)
18, Judges’ Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700027

 

Execution Case No. 06 of 2021
(Arising out of CC/396/2018)

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ;

 

Sri Bhaskar Biswas, Son of Sri Nilratan Biswas, Residing at 87F, Kailash Ghosh Road, P.S.– Haridevpur, Kolkata–700008, District: South 24 Parganas.

Decree Holder / Applicant

 

-Versus-

 

Sri Soumen Chakraborty, Son of Sri Ashok Chakraborty, Proprietor, M/s A.G. Construction, Office at 4/4B, Motilal Gupta Road, P.S.–Haridevpur, Kolkata–700008,
District: South 24 Parganas.

 

Judgment Debtor / Opposite Party

 

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 72 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 SEEKING INITIATION OF PENAL ACTION FOR WILLFUL NON-COMPLIANCE OF FINAL ORDER DATED 09.10.2020

 

Most respectfully the Applicant states as follows;

 

  1. That the Hon’ble Commission was pleased to pass a Judgment and Final Order dated 09.10.2020 in Consumer Complaint No. CC/396/2018 directing the Judgment Debtor to pay;

 

(i)   13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs) along with interest @9% p.a. from 11.04.2017 till realization; and

 

(ii)  10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards litigation cost within two months.

 

  1. That the said Final Order has attained finality in terms of Section 68 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as no appeal has been preferred, nor has the Decree Holder received any notice of appeal.

 

3.   That during the pendency of the present execution proceedings, the Judgment Debtor voluntarily appeared before this Hon’ble Commission through filing of Vakalatnama, and further submitted an application praying for time to comply with the Final Order, thereby unequivocally acknowledging the binding nature of the decree.

 

4.   That after seeking time, the Judgment Debtor abruptly stopped appearing in the proceedings and has been deliberately avoiding the implementation of the Order and evading the authority of this Hon’ble Commission.

 

5.   That to secure his presence, this Hon’ble Commission issued Bailable Warrant, which, despite being forwarded to the jurisdictional Haridevpur Police Station, was not executed on various unjustified and misleading pretexts.

 

6.   That thereafter, this Hon’ble Commission, in exercise of its statutory coercive jurisdiction, issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), however, the same too remains unexecuted with the police reporting that the Judgment Debtor could not be found, despite the record and the Applicant’s knowledge clearly indicating that he continues to ordinarily reside and operate within the jurisdiction of Haridevpur Police Station.

 

7.   That the records of this Hon’ble Commission speak for themselves and demonstrate that due to purposeful laxity and indulgence on the part of the Judgment Debtor, coupled with failure of police machinery in executing the warrants, his appearance could not be compelled despite repeated attempts.

 

8.   That from the conduct of the Judgment Debtor, it stands conclusively established that he is intentionally, consciously and willfully refusing to comply with the Final Order dated 09.10.2020, thereby falling within the ambit of punishment under Section 72(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

  1. That despite having full knowledge of the binding order of this Hon’ble Commission, the Judgment Debtor has deliberately, intentionally and willfully failed to comply with the directions made therein.

 

  1. That the willful disobedience of the said order amounts to gross contempt and violation of Section 72(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides for penal consequences including imprisonment, fine or both for non-compliance of an order of the Consumer Commission.

 

  1. That the continued non-compliance without any reasonable cause clearly demonstrates the Judgment Debtor’s deliberate attempt to frustrate the execution proceedings and deny justice to the Decree Holder.

 

  1. That this Hon’ble Commission has adequate power and jurisdiction to initiate penal action against the Judgment Debtor for such non–compliance, including imprisonment for a term extending to three years or fine, or both, as contemplated under Section 72 of the Act.

 

  1. That unless this Hon’ble Commission initiates proceedings under Section 72, the Judgment Debtor will continue to flout the binding orders with impunity, causing irreparable loss and harassment to the Decree Holder.

 

  1. That this application is made bonafide and in the interest of justice.

 

In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to;

 

a) Initiate penal proceedings against the Judgment Debtor under Section 72(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for willful non-compliance of the final order dated 09.10.2020;

 

b) Issue appropriate warrant, summon or notice to show cause as to why action under Section 72 should not be taken;

 

c) Impose appropriate punishment, including imprisonment and/or fine, as contemplated under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019;

 

d) And/or pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

 

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT SHALL EVER PRAY.

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

 

I, Sri Bhaskar Biswas, Son of Sri Nilratan Biswas, aged about ___ years, by faith Hindu, by occupation Service, residing at premises being No. 87F, Kailash Ghosh Road, Police Station – Haridevpur, Kolkata – 700008, District – South 24 Parganas, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows;

 

  1. That I am the Decree Holder in the above-named execution proceeding and the applicant in the accompanying Application under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and as such fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case.

 

  1. That the Hon’ble Commission was pleased to pass a Judgment and Final Order dated 09.10.2020 in CC/396/2018 directing the Judgment Debtor to pay 13,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% and 10,000/- towards litigation expenses within a period of two months.

 

  1. That despite having full knowledge of the said order, the Judgment Debtor has willfully failed, refused, and neglected to comply with the same, causing prejudice, harassment and financial loss to me.

 

  1. That no stay order, modification order, or any order of suspension of the said Judgment dated 09.10.2020 has ever been communicated to me or placed before this Hon’ble Commission.

 

  1. That the accompanying application invoking Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is being filed for initiation of penal action against the Judgment Debtor for deliberate and willful non-compliance of the binding order of this Hon’ble Commission.
  2. That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 5 above are true to my knowledge and belief.

 

 

 

DEPONENT

Identified by me,

 

Advocate

Drafted & Prepared in my Chamber;

 

 

Advocate

Date : _________________2025

Place : Alipore Judges’ Court                                              N O T A R Y