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

1992 Supreme(Cal) 149

High Court Of Calcutta
A. N. Ray
MANMATHA KRISHAN MITRA - Appellant
Versus
DENA BANK - Respondent
Suit 787  Of  1988
Decided On : 04/08/1992

Advocates Appeared:
B.K.BACHAVAT, DIPAK K.SHOME, Supriya Bose

A consolidation of tenancies can be effected by a registered instrument, and a lease for a period of 19 years is outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Headnote:

LEASE - CONSOLIDATION - TENANCIES - EFFECT - INTERPRETATION OF DEED - SURRENDER OF EARLIER LEASES - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Manmatha Krishna Mitra, filed a suit for possession of two separate portions of premises No. 83/1, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta, claiming the expiry of the demised terms. The plaintiff and the defendant executed two deeds on March 5, 1969, which were registered. One was a lease for a period of 19 years, and the other was a deed of consolidation. The main issue in the suit was whether the two earlier tenancies were consolidated into one or whether they continued to be separate and running concurrently for two different terms of 21 years and 19 years, respectively.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the two earlier tenancies were consolidated into one on March 5, 1969, by virtue of the deed of consolidation. The court found that the parties intended to consolidate the tenancy and that the consolidation was effective from the date of the deed of consolidation. The court also held that the lease for 19 years was outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and that the suit was not maintainable.

Issues: 1. Whether the two earlier tenancies were consolidated into one by the deed of consolidation of March 5, 1969? 2. Whether the lease for 19 years was outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956? 3. Whether the suit was maintainable?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles of law in reaching its decision: 1. The intention of the parties is the primary factor in determining whether there has been a consolidation of tenancies. 2. A consolidation of tenancies can be effected by a registered instrument. 3. A lease for a period of 19 years is outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 4. A suit for possession of premises is not maintainable if the lease is outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit, holding that the two earlier tenancies were consolidated into one on March 5, 1969, by virtue of the deed of consolidation, that the lease for 19 years was outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and that the suit was not maintainable.

A. N. RAY, J.

( 1 ) IN this suit the plaintiff claims for possession of the two separate portions of premises No. 83/1, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta by reason of expiry of the demised terms.

( 2 ) THE brief of documents in this case was marked by consent of parties as Ext. A. The first document in Ext. A is a copy of lease dated 6/05/1966 by way of which one portion of the said premises was demised for a term of 21 years. The term was agreed to commence from the 1st of July 1966 and was due to expire with the expiry of the 30/06/1977. It cannot be disputed that on the day this lease was executed, it was outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER on the 5/03/1969, the parties executed two other Deeds - both of which are registered. These two deeds of the same date form documents 2 and 3 of Ext. A. Manmatha Krishna Mitra, the plaintiff, who came to give evidence, even though he was 88 years old, said that he did not remember which of the two deeds was executed first. But the only way to give a meaningful interpretation to the two deeds would be that. the second document in Ext. A was executed prior to the third.

( 4 ) THE said second document in Ext. A is another lease dated 5/03/1969 in respect of one shop room which was previously occupied by one M/s. Ganguly and Co. This lease was for a period of 19 years and was agreed to commence from the 1st of July 1968. Parties thus agreed that the duration of both of the aforesaid leases of 1966 and 1969 were to run out simultaneously, i. e. , with the expiry of 30/06/1987.

( 5 ) NEXT on the 5th March, the deed of consolidation was executed which was also a registered deed. The main issue in this suit is whether by reason of the said deed of consolidation, the two earlier tenancies were consolidated into one or whether the two earlier tenancies continued to be separate and running concurrently for the two different terms of 21 years and 19 years respectively.

( 6 ) THE crucial importance of determination of this point lies in the fact that though a lease for 21 years would be outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, a lease for 19 years would not be outside the scope of the said Act. Mr. Bachawat for the plaintiff has pressed before me for eviction and a decree for possession in respect of the portion demised under the lease of 1966 for 21 years. The deed of consolidation of 5/03/1969 states in the fourth recital clause that the tenancies created by the two principal deeds of 6/05/1966 and 5/03/1969 shall be treated as one and the rents reserved thereunder shall be paid together at the aggregate sum of Rs. 3400. 00.

( 7 ) THE separate rents reserved under the two leases of 1966 and 1969 were Rs. 3000. 00 and Rs. 400. 00 respectively. The consolidation of the tenancy as well as of the rent was mentioned not only in the fourth recital clause of the deed of consolidation, but was repeated in the operative part of the said deed, in clause 2 thereof.

( 8 ) AS the entire suit turns on an interpretation of the clauses of this deed of consolidation, I set out below clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the said Deed :"l. The lessee shall close the entrance from the main gate and also remove all advertisement boards and other fittings fixed on the walls of the main gate as also in the portion inside the main gate and shall not have access through and over the passage shown and delineated in the map or plan annexed hereto in the thatchet blue colour as soon as the opening through the front portion demised under the said Indenture of lease dated 5/03/1969 are complete and being used by the lessee. 2. The tenancy created under the aforesaid indenture of lease dated 6/05/1966 and indenture of lease dated February 1969 in respect of the different portions of the premises No. 83/l, Cornwallis Street (Now Bindhan Sarani) described in schedule to the said indenture of lease dated 6/05/1966 and the schedule to the said indenture of lease dated 5/03/1969 shall b










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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