SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 429

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(V 57 C 181)
(From Calcutta: AIR 1963 Cal 198)
14-10-1969.
V. RAMASWAMI AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
C. Mackertich, Appellant
Versus
Steuart and Co., Ltd., Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1933 and 1934 of 1966, D/- 14-10-1969.

Advocates:
For the Appellant :S. Kakkar, Advocate
For the Respondents:R.S. Jamwal, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S.106 - Premises let out to partners of partnership firm carrying on business as coach builders under registered lease - Partners entering into agreement with company to sell entire business along with general assets and lease-hold properties - Company entering into possession of lease-hold premises - Object of company to carry on trade or business of coach and carriage builders and to buy, sell, import, manufacture, repair, let on, hire, otherwise deal in carriages and vehicles of every description - Separate deed of transfer of premises in favour of company not executed - Lessor treating company as monthly tenant - Failure of Company to prove that lease was dominantly for manufacture purpose - Tenancy was monthly and terminable by 15 days notice.

       (B) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S.106 - Whether for applying the presumption under Section 106 the test is exclusiveness of manufacturing purpose.

       (C) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S.100, S.101 - New Point - Point not raised in written statement - Cannot be allowed to be raised. (Para 3)

Judgment

RAMASWAMI, J.: These appeals are brought by certificate from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated March 27, 1962 in appeals from original decrees Nos. 55 and 268 of 1956.

2. By a registered lease dated December 22, 1913, M. Mackertich and Frank Earnest Bushby let out the subject matter of Title Suit No. 31/53, that is, a portion of the premises No. 38/1 Panditia Road, covering an area of approximately 7 bighas, 9 cottahs, 5 chittacks and 9 square ft. of land to four persons, namely Walter Bushby, Frank Earnest Bushby, Geoffrey B. Page and William Shenton carrying on business as coach builders. The term of the lease was for 50 years from January 1, 1915. By another registered lease dated January 31, 1919 between the same lessors and the lessees the premises which are the subject-matter of Title Suit No. 30/53 were leased out for a period of 46 years and three months from October 1, 1918. By memorandum and Articles of Association dated December 4, 1919 a company limited by shares namely Steuart and Co. Ltd., was incorporated. The objects of the company were to carry on the trade or business of coach and carriage builders and to buy, sell import, export, manufacture, repair, let on hire, otherwise deal in carriage and vehicles of every description. On December 17, 1919 an agreement was made and signed between the partners of the partnership firm (Frank Earnest Bushby Geoffery Barridge Page and William Shenton) and Steuart and Co. Ltd., wherein it was stated that the partners of the partnership firm would sell the business and transfer all the assets of the firm with effect from the 31st day of December, 1919 to the incorporated company viz. Steuart and Co. Ltd. It was stipulated that the partners would sell and the incorporated company would purchase with effect from December 31, 1919 the goodwill of the business, the leasehold properties of the firm, machinery, office furniture etc., of the firm and generally all the assets of the firm. Under this agreement the incorporated company entered into possession of the leasehold premises of the partnership firm and also took charge of the business of the partnership firm and began to carry on the business itself. No separate deed of transfer in respect of the leasehold properties was executed by the partnership firm in favour of the new incorporated company. But the lessors treated the incorporated company as monthly tenants and accepted rents from them. Frank Earnest Brushby ultimately sold his interest as owner of the property to M. Mackertich. The plaintiff C. Mackertich is the son of M. Mackertich and has inherited all his interests and is, therefore, the sole landlord of two premises in suit. He claimed that the tenancies were governed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 and on the ground that there had been default of payment of rent from May, 1952 to March, 1953 he claimed that the defendant company had forfeited the protection against eviction. Notice determining the tenancy was issued on March 12, 1953 by registered post and served on the defendant company on March 13, 1953 calling upon the defendant company to vacate the premises. As the defendant company did not give up possession of the premises, the plaintiff instituted the two suits on May 26, 1953 seeking decree for the ejectment against the defendant company and a decree for Rs. 5,500 for arrears of rent for 11 months from May, 1952 to March, 1953 in Title Suit No. 31 of 1953 and a decree for arrears of Rs. 2,200 for the 11 months from May, 1952 to March, 1953 in Title Suit No. 30 of 1953. Plaintiff also claimed decrees for damages from the 1st of April, 1953 in both the suits. The defendant contested the suits on the ground that the tenancies were governed by the terms of the lease deed dateds December 22, 1913 and January 31, 1919 and that in the circumstances the tenancies were not governed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 and could not be determined by service of 15 d










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top