Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Salil Kumar Datta
GOSTO BEHARI ROY - Appellant
Versus
RAMESH CHANDRA DAS - Respondent
AFA 1425 Of 1971
Decided On : 02/06/1978
LANDLORD AND TENANT - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13 (1) (B) AND (K) - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 106 - SURRENDER OF TENANCY - VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT - FRAUD - UNDUE INFLUENCE - ACCEPTANCE OF SURRENDER - NOTICE TO QUIT - EFFECT OF FRESH NOTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant from the suit premises, alleging that the defendant agreed to vacate the premises on the expiry of three years from the date of a letter written by the defendant. The defendant denied the allegations of waste and stated that he was induced to write the letter by the plaintiff's false assurances.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the letter could not be treated as an agreement as it was not signed by both parties and that the plaintiff was not entitled to get a decree for eviction under Section 13 (1) (k) of the Act. The appellate court held that the letter embodied an express agreement on the part of the defendant to vacate the premises, but that the plaintiff obtained the letter from the defendant by exercising fraud as alleged in the written statement.
Issues: 1. Whether the letter of September 12, 1962, was a valid agreement between the parties? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for eviction under Section 13 (1) (b) and Section 13 (1) (k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act? 3. Whether the defendant was a free agent in writing the letter of agreement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the letter of September 12, 1962, was not a valid agreement as it was obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant by exercising fraud. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for eviction under Section 13 (1) (b) and Section 13 (1) (k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as the tenancy was not validly determined by the notice of October 6, 1965.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of affirmance. The plaintiff appellant instituted the suit on Dec. 14, 1965 for recovery of possession of the suit premises being the first floor and a portion of the ground floor and a tiled shed of premises No. 3/1a, Mahendra Road. Calcutta which the defendant respondent held as a monthly tenant under him at a monthly rent of Rs. 110/- according to English Calendar, The material allegations were that file defendant who was inducted in the suit premises prior to 1954 agreed by a letter in writing dated Sept. 12, 1962 to deliver vacant possession thereof on the expiry of three years from the date. The said letter written by the defendant by his own hand, is as follows :--" Sri G. B. Roy, LL. B. , Advocate, 16a, Nandan Road, Calcutta-25. Dear Sir, Re: Portion of 3/1a, Mahendra Road, Calcutta-25 occupied by me as a tenant. I understand from Sri Jitendra Nath Mukherjee that you require vacancy of your house as aforesaid and you will be happy if I vacate it on the expiry of three years from date. As a gesture of good relation with you, 1 shall accordingly act. 3/1a, Mahendra Road. , Calcutta-25. 12th September, 1962. Yours faithfully, Hamesh Chandra Das",
( 2 ) THE plaintiff sent a letter on July 31, 1965 to the defendant reminding him about the said agreement, which, it appears, was duly received but no reply was given. The defendant failed to deliver possession of the premises as aforesaid and was also guilty of acts of waste in the meantime in respect of the premises acting contrary to provisions of Clause (m) of Section 108 of the T. P. Act, 1882.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff served a notice to quit dated Oct. 6, 1965 directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the premises with the expiry of the month of Nov. 1965-This notice, as it reads, was one under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as also under Section 106 of the T. P. Act, 1882 and thereafter the suit was filed as stated above.
( 4 ) THE defendant in his written statement denied the allegations of waste and in regard to his letter of Sept. 12, 1962 stated that as there was a mortgage suit in respect of the suit property being T. S. No, 48 of 1958 of the Fourth Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, there was a proposal for sale of the property to him through the plaintiff's friend and the defendant's acquaintance Shri Jitendra Nath Mukherjee. As the sale price of Rs. 50,000/- was too high the proposal was not acceptable to him, Then the plaintiff stated that as it would be difficult to get the purchaser for a tenanted house, he requested the defendant importunately to give a letter to the effect that the defendant would vacate the suit premises on the expiry of three years. The plaintiff assured the defendant that he would be able to put off the disposal of the suit T. S. No. 48 of 1958 of the Fourth Court of the said Subordinate Judge and to get a purchaser of the house. He further assured the defendant that the said letter would never be treated as a notice to quit by him. The defendant could not disoblige the plaintiff and in good faith wrote the said letter at the dictation of the plaintiff in the presence of three gentlemen, two of whom were Sri Suresh Chandra Das and Sri Shudhanshu Majumdar while he had forgotten the name of the third gentleman. The written statement further proceeded to say that he was not a free agent in writing the said letter and the plaintiff practised fraud on him. In view of house scarcity particularly in respect of a house suitable to his pocket for the purpose of residence and practice as Chartered Accountant, he would not have set his foot on the trap laid by the plaintiff for him if he had any glimpse of the working of the mind of the plaintiff. It was further stated that the said letter, even if treated as a surrender of tenancy, in any event was not accepted by the plaintiff. The defendant also denied the allegations of
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
