Back
G.L.OZA, K.N.SAIKIA
Provash Chandra Dalui – Appellant
Versus
Biswanath Banerjee – Respondent
Key Points: - The lease was found to be for a term not less than 12 years, affecting thika tenancy status under S.2(5)(b) and S.5; High Court held lease not less than 12 years (!) (!) . - Essential element of waiver requires voluntary relinquishment of a known right; in this case no evidence supported waiver/estoppel against the first respondent (!) (!) . - Prior proceedings before the Controller did not conclusively confer thika tenancy status; status could not be altered by pleadings or incidental orders, so estoppel/waiver not established (!) (!) (!) . - The Court rejected the appellants’ claim of thika tenancy status and upheld dismissal of the appeal; no costs awarded (!) (!) . - The lease provisions specify a sequence of extensions (ten years initial term, then two 5-year extensions, then potential one-year extension) culminating in a twenty-year framework with specified rents, indicating an extension rather than renewal (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The landlord-lessee relationship under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act requires ejectment applications to the Controller; the status hinges on lease duration and statutory definitions (!) (!) . - The decision cites Shanti Devi v. A. K. Banerjee to emphasize that pleadings cannot alter the intrinsic character of the lease; focus remains on the lease terms (!) . - The appeal was dismissed; landlord-tenant dispute regarding whether appellants were Thika tenants under the Act is resolved against the appellants (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes interpretation of contract as a whole and the need to read the lease in context to ascertain true meaning (!) . - The decision discusses distinction between extension and renewal of a lease and clarifies that the lease in question was for twenty years with extension provisions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
K. N. SAIKIA, J.:— This defendants appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 18th February, 1982 in S.A.T. No. 87 of 1981 summarily dismissing the Second Appeal against the appellate order in T.A. No. 381 of 1980 which affirmed the judgment and decree in title suit No. 56 of 1966.
The instant second respondent Narendra Nath Mukherjee leased out the land measuring 6 cottas 5 chittaks 30 sqr. ft. at 5/2/A Russa Road, now known as 34/A Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, by a registered lease deed dated 26th September, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the lease, at the first instance for a period of 10 years from 1st April, 1946, but if the lessee did not fail to pay the rent to the lessor and rates and taxes to the municipality during that period, the lease would be extended for a further period of 5 years i.e. up to 3lst March, 1961 at the rent of Rs. 250 in place of Rs. 200 per month; and if he continued to do likewise, it would be extended for a further period of 5 years, that is, up to 31 st March, 1966, at a monthly rent of Rs. 300 in place of Rs. 250; and if he continued to do likewise, during the period of 20 years,
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
