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

1964 Supreme(Cal) 59

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, T. P. MUKHERJI
LALIT MOHAN DEY - Appellant
Versus
SATADALBASINI DASI - Respondent
.   Of  .
Decided On : March 16, 1964

Advocates Appeared:
Hemanta Krishna Mitra, Sachindra Benode Chakravorty

A tenant who holds land under a registered lease for a period of not less than twelve years is not a thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949.

Headnote:

THIKA TENANCY - STATUS OF TENANT - RENEWAL CLAUSE - EXERCISE OF OPTION - HOLDING OVER - NATURE OF TENANCY - CALCUTTA THIKA TENANCY ACT, 1949, SECTION 2(5)(B).

Fact of the Case:

The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff's father under a registered lease for twenty years. The lease contained a renewal clause, which gave the defendant the option to renew the lease for a further period of six years at an enhanced rent. The defendant exercised her option and continued to pay the enhanced rent. However, she did not obtain a fresh lease for the renewal period.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the defendant was not a thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, because she was holding the suit land under a registered lease for a period of not less than twelve years. The court also held that the defendant's tenancy was not a new tenancy arising on the expiry of the original lease, but was a continuation of the old tenancy under the renewal clause.

Issues: 1. Whether the defendant was a thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949? 2. Whether the defendant's tenancy was a new tenancy arising on the expiry of the original lease?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendant was not a thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, because she was holding the suit land under a registered lease for a period of not less than twelve years. The court relied on Section 2(5)(b) of the Act, which excludes from the definition of "thika tenant" a person who holds land under a registered lease for a period of not less than twelve years. 2. The court held that the defendant's tenancy was not a new tenancy arising on the expiry of the original lease, but was a continuation of the old tenancy under the renewal clause. The court relied on the fact that the defendant had exercised her option to renew the lease and had continued to pay the enhanced rent. The court also held that the renewal clause was a term of the original lease and that the defendant's tenancy under the renewal clause was, therefore, a tenancy under the original lease.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the decree of the trial court, which had granted the plaintiff's claim for ejectment. However, the court granted the defendant two years' time to vacate the suit property, provided she paid the arrears of rent or mesne profits and continued to pay the current mesne profits.

P. B. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against a decree, passed by the learned trial Judge, allowing the plaintiff's claim for ejectment but granting the defendant three years' time or a grace period of three years to vacate the suit property. F. A. No. 144 of 1960 is by the defendant, wherein she challenges the decree for ejectment. The other appeal (F. A. No. 97 of 1960) is by the plaintiff, who has felt aggrieved by the above provision for time or grace period in the decree of the Court below. This latter appeal, however, has spent itself and become infructuous as the grace period in question expired even before its hearing and the only order, which we need pass in this appeal, is to dismiss it on the said ground. F. A. No. 97 of 1960, is, accordingly, dismissed without costs.

( 2 ) TURNING, now, to the defendant tenant's appeal we may at once say that it involves a short question as to the defendant's status, namely, whether she is a thika tenant, entitled to protection under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. The relevant facts aren't many and they may be briefly stated here as follows:the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff's father under a registered lease, dated September 26, 1929. That lease (Vide its certified copy Ext. B) was for twenty years, commencing from September 15, 1929. The rent reserved was Rs. 27/5/- per month @ Rs. 13/8/- per cottah per month on the total demised area of 2k-17 sq. feet. It also contained a renewal clause in the following terms:"if the lessee shall be desirous of taking a renewal of the said demised premises for a further term of six years, commencing from the expiration of the term, hereby granted, the lessor shall execute and register and grant unto the lessee a renewal or fresh lease of the said premises for a further term of six years, commencing from the expiration of the term, hereby granted, at an enhanced rent of Rs. 15/- (Rupees fifteen) per cottah per month and subject to the same covenants, conditions and provisions as are herein contained saving the present covenant for a renewal and the present rate of rent. "

( 3 ) IT is the plaintiff's case that the lessee exercised her above option of renewal and paid the enhanced rent of Rs. 30-5-9p. per month at the above enhanced rate of Rs. 15/- per cottah per month and remained in possession. The lessee, however, did not quit possession on the expiry of the said renewal or renewed period, notwithstanding plaintiff's demand for possession, and, accordingly, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 15th September, 1958, for ejectment and mesne profits, of which, however, the latter claim was withdrawn by the plaintiff in course of the suit with leave to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action, if not otherwise barred.

( 4 ) THE parties fought grimly on the issue of ejectment, the main defence on this particular point being that the defendant was a thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, which protected her from eviction. Obviously, if the defendant is a thika tenant under the above Act, the present action for ejectment must fail in view at least of Section 5 of the above Act, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of such ejectment with the Thika Tenancy Controller. The point, however, is whether the defendant's above claim of status is well founded.

( 5 ) NOW, Section 2 (5) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, - to quote only its relevant part, - defines Thika tenant as follows :-" 'thika tenant' means any person who holds, whether under a written lease or otherwise, land under another person and is or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent at a monthly or at any other periodical rate for that land to that another person and has erected or acquired by purchase or gift any structure on such land for a residential, manufacturing of business purpose and includes the successors in interest of such person but does not include a person - (b) who holds such lan












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