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

1983 Supreme(Cal) 237

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P.K. BANERJEE, R.K. SHARMA, JJ.
Bank Of India - Appellant
Versus
Govind Devi Binani - Respondent
Appeal from Original Decree No. 101 of 1981.
Decided on : Aug 24, 1983

Advocates appeared:
A.K. Bhattacharyya, B.C. Dutt, G.C. Tondon, K.L. Kandoi, R.K. Banerji, Subhas Banerji,

The renewal of a lease for a period of 3 years under a renewal clause in a registered lease for 16 years does not create a fresh lease but is a continuation of the original lease, and the tenant is not entitled to protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Headnote:

LANDLORD-TENANT - LEASE - RENEWAL - OPTION - REGISTRATION - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 3 - LEASE FOR MORE THAN 16 YEARS EXECUTED BEFORE 1965 - NOT COVERED BY THE ACT - RENEWAL OF LEASE FOR 3 YEARS - NOT A FRESH LEASE - CONTINUATION OF ORIGINAL LEASE - TENANT NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The Bank of India, as a tenant, occupied the first floor of a building under a registered lease for 16 years. The lease contained an option for renewal for a further period of 3 years. The Bank exercised the option and continued in possession after the expiry of the 16-year period. The landlord filed an eviction suit against the Bank, claiming that it had become a statutory tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the renewal of the lease for 3 years was not a fresh lease but a continuation of the original lease. Therefore, the Bank was not entitled to protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which did not apply to leases executed before 1965 for more than 16 years.

Issues: 1. Whether the renewal of the lease for 3 years was a fresh lease or a continuation of the original lease? 2. Whether the Bank was entitled to protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Syed Ali v. Ayesha Begum (AIR 1977 Cal. 226), which held that the subsequent period of one year for which the lessee had exercised his option in terms of the lease could not be called a fresh lease but was a continuation of the lease as originally executed. 2. The Court also referred to the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Krishna Prasad v. Saraju (65 CWN 293), which held that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 did not apply to leases executed before 1965 for more than 16 years.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Bank's appeal and upheld the eviction decree passed by the trial court.

JUDGMENT

1. THIS appeal at the instance of the Bank of India arose out of a suit of eviction filed by the landlord against the bank. It appears that the plaintiffs are trustees of the Trust, stvled as "nathi Bai binani Trust" and the premises No. 59, cotton Street, Calcutta belongs to the said trust. By a registered deed of lease dated 1st November, 1958, the aforesaid Trust, through its trustees, granted lease to the defendant in respect of the entire first floor of the premises No. 59, Cotton Street, calcutta, including a separate staircase and one kitchen room on the ground floor of the said premises for a period of 16 years commencing from the first day of September 1958, and, terminating on 31st day of august, 1974, with an option to the lessee to extend the same thereafter for a period of 3 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/-since mutually increased to Rs. 1320/for the facility of installing air-conditioned unit payable according to English Calendar month. One of the said terms of the lease was that:

"3 (b). That the defendant shall at the expiration or sooner determination of the terms hereby granted peacefully and quietly yield and deliver up to the plaintiffs vacant possession of the demised premises and the said kitchen room in the ground floor in as good condition as the same now are with structural additions and constructions as aforesaid in reasonable wear and tear and damage by fire or other act of God or by any kind of irresistible force always excepted".

2. IN pursuance of the terms of the lease, the defendant was continuing in possession of the premises and the plaintiffs were accepting rent from the defendant. After the expiry of the original period of the said lease on 31st August, 1974, the defendant exercised the option contained in the lease which was after some demur accepted to by the plaintiffs and the defendant continued in possession of the premises in the same terms and conditions till the 31st august, 1977, when the said extended period expired. It appears that the defendant, Bank of India, did not vacate the premises after the expiry of 31st August, 1977 whereupon the plaintiffs by letter dated 8th august, 1977 asked the defendant. Bank of India to vacate the premises by 31st august, 1977. The defendant Bank having refused to do so, the instant suit was filed. The defendant Bank entered appearance and filed written statement, inter alia, alleging that the defendant was originally inducted to the tenancy in suit on 1. 9. 58, by the plaintiff No. 1 and thereafter a registered deed was executed on 1. 11. 58, between Nathi Bai Binani Trust Estate as lessors and the defendant as Lessee, it is admitted that in the lease there was a covenant for option of renewal of the lease by this defendant for further period of 3 years on fulfilment of certain terms by the Bank. On the expiry of the Lease period of 16 years, there was no renewal of the lease nor any lease deed for any further period was executed and it is alleged that the defendant became monthly tenant under the plaintiff No. 1 and the said Bhowanidas Binani as trustees of the said Trust Estate on and from 1. 9. 74, and the tenancy was governed by the West (Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Before we deal with the question raised in this appeal, it is convenient for us to refer to some of the documents which are exhibited in the suit. Exhibit "1" is a Deed of Lease registered on 1st November, 1958, in favour of the Bank of India for 16 years. It appears that during the subsistence of the lease, the Bank of India wanted to install air-condition machine in be premises and by agreement by both the parties for the added advantage, the rent was enhanced from Rs. 1200/- to 1320/ -. Be that as it may, under the stipulation of the renewal clause, it was provided that the option for renewal must be exercised, one year before the expiry of the term of the lease.

3. BY letter dated 2nd April, 1974, the agent of the Bank of India wrote to the trustees of Nathi













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top