High Court Of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya And Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, JJ.
RAMDAS BANSAL - Appellant
Versus
KHARAG SINGH BAID - Respondent
C. S 102 Of 1994
Decided On : 07/16/2007
LEASE AGREEMENT - RECTIFICATION - DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - APPLICABILITY - THIKA TENANT - DEFINITION - LEASE - DISTINCTION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises and mesne profits after allowing the prayer for rectification of the deed of lease. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and contending that the suit was not maintainable as he was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs and the tenancy was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the description of the suit property in the plaint was sufficiently clear and there was no ambiguity in the identification of the subject-matter of the suit property. The court also held that the rectification of the deed was necessary to correct a typographical mistake in the number of the premises and that the learned Single Judge rightly granted the prayer for rectification. The court further held that the plaintiffs were not thika tenants within the meaning of the definition given in the subsequent legislations and that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act could not have any application to the facts of the present case.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was liable to be dismissed for indistinctness of the property mentioned in the plaint? 2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in law in passing a direction for rectification of the deed after the expiry of the period mentioned in said deed? 3. Whether the defendant was a bharatia within the meaning of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 as also the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The description of the suit property in the plaint was sufficiently clear and there was no ambiguity in the identification of the subject-matter of the suit property. 2. The rectification of the deed was necessary to correct a typographical mistake in the number of the premises and that the learned Single Judge rightly granted the prayer for rectification. 3. The plaintiffs were not thika tenants within the meaning of the definition given in the subsequent legislations and that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act could not have any application to the facts of the present case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge was upheld.
( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for recovery of possession and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th April, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship passed a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises and also mesne profits after allowing the prayer of the plaintiffs-respondents for rectification of the deed of lease.
( 2 ) THE respondents filed a suit being Title Suit No. 102 of 1994 against the appellant thereby praying for the following relief:
(a) "decree for quiet, peaceful and vacant possession of the said property comprising of the demised premises described in the Schedule appended hereto and Marked - "a" and delineated in the Map or Plan annexed hereto and marked with the Letter - "b" and moveable Article particularized in annexure- "c" hereto forming part of the demised premises or in connection therewith as provided for and in terms of the said Indenture of Lease;
(b) If necessary, the misdescriptions in the said Deed of Lease dated 19th september, 1972 be rectified so as to reflect the true intention of the parties as indicated in paragraph 7 hereof;
(c) Decree for Rs. 13,05,000/- as mentioned in paragraph 18 above; (d) Further mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per diem or at such rate as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; (e) Interim interest and interest on judgment; (f) Receiver; (g) Injunction; (h) Attachment; (i) Costs; (j) Further and other reliefs. "
( 3 ) THE case made out by the plaintiffs-respondents may be summed up thus:
(i) The plaintiffs, six in number, were all the sons of one Chaganlall Baid who absolutely seized and possessed brick built messuage tenement or theatre house known as 'grace Cinema' with piece and parcel of land whereon and whereof the building measuring fifteen cottahs twelve chittacks more or less being a portion of 91a, Mahatma Gandhi Road and one room in the ground floor and open space in a portion of premises no. 6a, Sambhu Chatterjee Street as described in part one of the first schedule annexed to the plaint and was also possessed of all that the leasehold hereditaments and premises or Theatre House together with the piece and parcel of land whereon and whereof the same is erected measuring three cottahs three chittacks and thirty square feet more or less being the front portion of the premises No. 91a, Mahatma Gandhi road as mentioned in Part-II of the first schedule.
(ii) The said Cinema House, more particularly described in paragraph 1 and Part-II of the first schedule, of the plaint was shown in the map or plan annexed thereto and marked with the Letter - "b" and was delineated in red colour boundary lines.
(iii) The said Chaganlall Baid was further absolutely seized and possessed of all furniture, articles and assets etc. used in the said portion of the said premises and appertaining to the said Cinema Hall including the seats, cushions, chairs, galleries, electrical fittings, lights, fans and other fixtures etc. described in second schedule annexed and marked with the letter -"c".
(iv) The said properties particularly described in Part-I and Part -II of the first schedule annexed and marked with the Letter- "a" and the second schedule marked with the Letter- "b" were effectively referred to as the suit property.
(v) By six several deeds of settlements, all dated 15th January, 1956, the said Chaganlall Baid transferred and conveyed the suit property in favour of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 with a direction upon them to hold the same for the benefit of the plaintiffs for the term mentioned therein. By those deeds of settlement, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were specifically empowered to lease out the property.
(vi) On the said authority, by an Indenture of Lease dated 19th September, 1972, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 granted unto the defendant a lease for a term of 21 years commencing from 1st November, 1972 on the terms, conditions
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.