Back
A.P.SEN, E.S.VENKATARAMIAH
Shanti Devi – Appellant
Versus
Amal Kumar Banerjee – Respondent
Key Points: - The lease was for a definite term of ten years (four-year initial term plus two renewals of three years each) and thus expired by efflux of time under Section 111(a) of the Act (!) . - When a lease expires by efflux of time and is not a tenancy holding over, Section 106 is not applicable and a quit notice is not required (!) . - The success of the appeal rested on recognizing the lease as a definite-term lease, not a month-to-month tenancy, and hence no Section 106 notice was necessary (!) . - The lease commenced from January 11, 1960, and ended on January 10, 1970, determining landlord-tenant relationship at that time (!) . - The High Court's consideration of notice validity proceeded under an incorrect assumption of month-to-month tenancy; the correct position is that the lease’s definite term governs (!) . - Statutory tenancy under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act did not arise since the area was not a Municipality and the premises were not statutory tenants after contractual termination (!) . - The appellate court restored the lower courts’ decrees for ejectment, concluding the plaintiff was entitled to ejectment after the lease expired (!) . - The judgment allowed a temporary stay to vacate with conditions, including deposit of arrears and ongoing damages, pending execution until a specified date (!) . - Appeal outcome: appeal allowed; High Court’s judgment set aside; plaintiffs’ suit decreed (!) . - Citation reference: AIR 1981 SC 1550 (!) .
JUDGMENT:- The only point involved in this appeal from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, in reversal of the judgment and decree of the Addl. District Judge, affirming those of the Subordinate Judge, Birbhum, and dismissing the plaintiffs suit for ejectment, is whether the plaintiffs suit for ejectment was not maintainable without a notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
2. The material facts of this case are its follows- By an indenture of lease dated March 19, 1956, the appellant who was the plaintiff, demised a cinema theatre known as Shanti House, situate at Sainthia under Anchal Panchayat in district Birbhum, to the respondent-defendant for a term of four years with a covenant of two renewals of three years each. The lease of this cinema theatre was to commence from the date on which the defendant was able to procure a licence. On May 2, 1970, the plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment on the ground that the lease had expired by efflux of time and also pleaded in the alternative that he had sent a notice dated April 3, 1970 to the defendant both at his Calcutta address and at his Sainthia address determining the tenancy with the expiry of the month of Ap
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
