The principle of concurrent lease is not applicable in India in view of the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act read with section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.

( 1 ) AN interesting point of law has been raised through this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the said point of law relates to the question as to whether the principle of concurrent lease is applicable in India notwithstanding the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 2 ) THE background of the present hearing may be briefly narrated in this way: one Sanjib Shaw alias Saha filed Ejectment Suit No. 222 of 2000 in the Small Causes Court, Calcutta against the present opposite parties. During pendency of that Ejectment suit the present petitioner Swapan Kr. Dutta filed an application before the trial Court under Order 22 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading his name as plaintiff in place of original plaintiff Sanjib Shaw alias Saha on the ground that during the pendency of the suit said Sanjib Saha has executed a deed of lease regarding the entire property including the suit property and hence on the basis of the said deed petitioner has become 'landlord' of the tenant opposite parties and she is entitled to proceed with the eviction suit now pending for disposal.

( 3 ) THE tenant opposite parties contended the said petition of Swapan Kr. Dutta before the trial Court on the ground that said Swapan Kr. Dutta could not acquire any right, title or interest over the suit property during the continuation of their tenancy right and hence, Swapan Kr. Dutta cannot be termed as 'landlord' within the meaning of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and naturally, he cannot be substituted in place of original plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta by his order dated 4th July 2000 accepted the contention of the opposite parties and held that petitioner Swapan Kr. Dutta did not acquire the status of 'landlord' on the basis of lease deed and hence, he was not entitled to be substituted in place of original plaintiff and to proceed with the Eviction suit.

( 5 ) SWAPAN Kumar Dutta being dissatisfied with the order of the learned trial Judge preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 2000 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta and the learned Judge 12th Bench, City Civil Court dismissed that appeal by His order dated 10th June, 2003 thereby confirming the observation of the trial Judge. Swapan Kr. Dutta has not challenged the legality and validity of the order passed in connection with Misc. Appeal as well as by the learned trial Court through this appeal application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

( 6 ) IT is pertinent to mention that according to the direction of this Court petitioner duly served notice of the present application upon the opposite parties and in spite of service nobody has come forward on behalf of the opposite parties to contest this application.

( 7 ) MR. Arindam Banerjee, appearing for the petitioner submits that the concept of concurrent lease although somewhat alien in the legal arena of this country had been very much in force in England and this concept of concurrent lease made it clear that even during continuation of an earlier lease, the lesser was entitled to create a subsequent lease covering the earlier lease also and thereby the subsequent lessee can be authorized in law to collect rent from the earlier lessee and if required to file suit for eviction of the earlier lessee. Mr. Arindam Banerjee in support of his contention has referred to the decision reported in ILR 49 Calcutta page 412 (Jahar Lal Bhutra v. Bhupendra Nath Basu), AIR Madras page 100 (Rathnaswami Mooppanar and Ors. v. R. C. Nagaraja Mooppanar) and 55 CWN page 86 (S. Mansingka v. Durga Dutta Misra and Ors.) Mr. Banerjee contends that in the case of Jahar Lal Bhutra (supra), this Court held that a 'landlord' who has earlier created a tenancy is still competent to curb out another tenancy and in the case of Rathnaswami Mooppanar and Ors. (supra) it was held by the Division Bench of the Madra