Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARTY, GOBINDA CHANDRA CHATTERJEE
HARIHAR PAL - Appellant
Versus
SUDHIR KUMAR PAL - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL 99 Of 1983
Decided On : 02/13/1987
CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT ACT - Section 23 - Apportionment of compensation money - Landlord and tenant - Agreement between landlord and tenant - Tenant agreeing to abandon claim for compensation for land in case of acquisition - Whether valid - Whether hit by provisions of S. 86 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act.
Fact of the Case:
Land with structures and trees thereon was acquired under the Calcutta Improvement Act. The compensation was awarded jointly in favour of the landlords, tenants, and the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation. The tenants filed a reference case before the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal challenging the apportionment of compensation. The Tribunal accepted the claim of tenancy of one tenant over the entire acquired land and gave effect to a compromise petition filed by the tenants settling the dispute between them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant had agreed to abandon the claim for compensation for the land in case of acquisition in a Kabuliyat executed in 1929. The court held that this agreement was valid and enforceable and was not hit by the provisions of S. 86 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The court also held that the tenant's holding over of the land after the expiry of the term of the Kabuliyat on payment of rent created a renewed tenancy on the same terms and conditions of the earlier Kabuliyat.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement between the landlord and tenant, whereby the tenant agreed to abandon the claim for compensation for land in case of acquisition, was valid and enforceable? 2. Whether the agreement was hit by the provisions of S. 86 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act? 3. Whether the tenant's holding over of the land after the expiry of the term of the Kabuliyat created a renewed tenancy on the same terms and conditions of the earlier Kabuliyat?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the agreement between the landlord and tenant, whereby the tenant agreed to abandon the claim for compensation for land in case of acquisition, was valid and enforceable. The court relied on the decision in Radhanath Maity v. Krishna Chandra Mukherji, (1936) 40 Cal WN 722, where it was held that an agreement that an occupancy raiyat will not in the event of acquisition by the Crown claim a share of the compensation money, was legal and enforceable. 2. The court held that the agreement was not hit by the provisions of S. 86 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The court held that the agreement did not limit or take away the right of the tenant acquired under the Act. 3. The court held that the tenant's holding over of the land after the expiry of the term of the Kabuliyat on payment of rent created a renewed tenancy on the same terms and conditions of the earlier Kabuliyat. The court relied on the decision in Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, AIR 1972 SC 819, where it was held that the act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind, but if a tenant remains in possession after the determination of the lease, with the consent of the landlord, a new tenancy is created.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal, and disposed of the reference case in accordance with the apportionments directed by the court.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a decision dt. 11-9-1982 of Shri A. K. Dutt, the learned President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in the Reference Case No. 3 of 1979 (A) and it arises out of a dispute with regard to the apportionment of the compensation money which has been awarded by reason of the acquisition of the land with structures and trees thereon in question under the Calcutta Improvement Act.
( 2 ) IT appears that 14 chittacks 20 sq. ft. of land out of the plot No. 731 of mouza Kasba, in premises Nos. 55 and 56, K. N. Sen Road was acquired and the value of the land was assessed at Rs. 1,26,793,62 and the value of the structures and trees on the premises No. 56, K. N. Sen Road was assessed at Rs. 7309. 00 and the value of the structures and trees on the premises Nos. 55 K. N. Sen Road was assessed at Rs. 5,875. 00. The total value of the land with structures and trees thereon was thus assessed at Rs. 1,40,059. 62. The amount of Rs. 3,718. 00 as damage was added to the same under S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus the total compensation as awarded was Rs. 1,43,786. 37 after deducting the capitalised value of the Government revenue at Rs. 8. 75. The amount on account of the value of the land was jointly awarded in favour of the landlords of the land, the respective tenants with regard to the respective premises Nos. 55 K. N. Sen Road and 56 K. N. Sen Road and the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation. The amount on account of the structures and trees on the respective premises Nos. 55 and 56 K. N. Sen Road was allotted to the respective tenants of those premises.
( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied with the award as given by the learned Collector, the reference case in question was started before the learned President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal on the basis of the applications for reference filed by the respective tenants of the premises in question.
( 4 ) SUDHIR Kumar Pal as heir of Kshetra Mohan Pal filed the application for reference claiming tenancy in the entire 24 decimal of land in plot No. 731 of C. S. Khatian No. 589 covering the entire acquired land under the landlord from the time of his forefather, on the allegation that Panchu Pada Pal was a licensee under him in respect of the premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road. Another set of claimant, viz. Phanilal Pal and others, as heirs of Panchu Pada Pal, filed the other application for reference claiming their tenancy in the premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road covering 8 cottahs and odd land under the same landlord.
( 5 ) THE landlords Harihar Pal and Santoash Kumar Pal tiled the written statement contending inter alia that Kshetra Mohan Pal, the father of Sudhir Kumar Pal was a tenant at will in respect of only 6 cottahs of land out of the land in plot No. 731 subject to the agreement that in case of the acquisition of land the landlord shall get the compensation for the land and the tenant shall get the compensation for the structures. Their further contention was that Kshetra Mohan surrendered 4 cottahs land out of the said 6 cottahs of land and retained only 2 cottahs of land in premises No. 56 K. N. Sen Road. Their further case was that Panchu Pada Pai was the premises tenant in respect of 2 cottahs of land only in premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road. The tenant-claimants also filed their respective written statements in support of their respective claims in the reference applications.
( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the reference case, both sets of the tenant-claimants filed a compromise petition settling their respective claims between themselves whereby they admitted the ownership of Phanilal Pal and others. the heirs of Panchu Pada Pal, over the 5 cottahs of land in premises No. 55 K. N. Sen Road and admitted also the ownership of Sudhir Kumar Pal over the remaining 9 cottahs 15 chittacks 20 sq. ft. of land in premises No. 56 K. N. Sen Road. The landlord Harihar Pal and another, however, resisted such claim of the two sets of tenant claim
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
