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

1999 Supreme(Cal) 276

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
RUMA PAL & S.K. TIWARI, JJ.
Union of India
Vs.
The General Beopar Co. Pvt. Ltd.
APD No. 503A of 1993
Decided On : May 17, 1999

A clause in a lease agreement that specifies the period of the lease does not amount to an agreement to vacate under section 13(1)(k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, unless it is clear and unambiguous.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13(1)(K) - LEASE AGREEMENT - AGREEMENT TO VACATE - CONSTRUCTION - LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a tenant, occupied premises owned by the respondent, a superior lessee, since 1965-66. In 1985, the parties agreed to enhance the monthly rent from Rs. 3625 to Rs. 20,000, subject to execution of a lease agreement. A lease was executed in 1987 for a period of five years, with an option for renewal. The appellant continued to pay rent at the enhanced rate until March 1990. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of vacant possession and mesne profits, claiming that the lease had expired and that the appellant had agreed to vacate the premises. The appellant did not file a written statement and the suit was decreed ex parte.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the lease agreement did not create a new tenancy but was a continuation of the original tenancy created in 1965. The court further held that the clause in the lease agreement specifying the period of the lease did not amount to an agreement to vacate under section 13(1)(k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The court also held that the ground of eviction by efflux of time, as contained in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, could not be brought into the Act by implication.

Issues: 1. Whether the lease agreement created a new tenancy or was a continuation of the original tenancy? 2. Whether the clause in the lease agreement specifying the period of the lease amounted to an agreement to vacate under section 13(1)(k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A lease agreement that creates a new tenancy must be construed strictly and cannot be implied from a mere enhancement of rent. 2. A clause in a lease agreement that specifies the period of the lease does not amount to an agreement to vacate under section 13(1)(k) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, unless it is clear and unambiguous.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of eviction. The court also directed the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal.

JUDGMENT : -


Ruma Pal, J.: Premises No. 10C, Middleton Row, Calcutta was occupied by a post office run by the appellant since 1965-66. The respondent is the superior lessee of the premises. The appellant was a monthly tenant in respect of the premises under the respondent. The initial rent was Rs. 3625.00 per month. Pursuant to negotiations in 1985, the appellant agreed to enhance the monthly rent of the premises to Rs. 20,000/-. Formal approval was given in writing by the office of the Post Master General, West Bengal on 9th April, 1987. A copy of the letter of approval dated 9th April, 1987 was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Central Calcutta by the office of the Post Master General requesting him to take effective steps for execution of a Lease Deed on behalf of the President of India incorporating the terms and conditions as recommended by the Circle Fair Rent Assessment Committee in addition to the conditions laid down in the standard lease agreement duly approved by the Ministry of Law, Branch Sectt., Calcutta 700001. Minutes of the Circle Fair Rent Assessment Committee held on 23.2.87 were also enclosed for necessary action and guidance. The payment of the rent at the enhanced rate was to be made subject to execution of the Lease Agreement.

2. The lease was executed on 19th October, 1987 between the respondent and the appellant. The relevant clauses for the purposes of this judgment are set out:

"The lessor doth hereby demise to the lessee the southern portion of ground floor and first floor measuring 4132.74 sq.ft. of premises No. 10C, Middleton Row, Calcutta 700 071 together with the proportionate share in the place of land on part whereof they are created and all the easements and appurtenance belonging thereto more particularly described in the schedule below: .

To hold the said premises unto the lessee for a period of five years commencing from the 1st day of April 1985 at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only for each English Calendar month which amount shall cover and include all Government and Municipal taxes including the Urban Immovable Property Tax and all which taxes shall be payable by, the lessors, such rent to be paid to the lessor at 10C, Middleton Row, Calcutta 700 071 or such other place as the lessor may in writing direct, any extra expense to the lessee thereby entailed being deducted from the amount of such instalment of rent and to be paid on or before the fifteenth day of the month following.

And further that the lessee shall have the option of renewing the lease of the said premises for a further term of 5 years on giving notice of such intention to the lessor at least 3 months before the expiration of the lease hereby granted and the lessor shall forthwith execute and deliver to the lessee a renewed and duly registered lease of the said premises for such further term of years at the same rent and under the same conditions as are herein contained excepting only this condition as to renewal."

3. On 29th October, 1997 the appellant paid arrears of rent calculated at Rs. 20,000/- for the period April, 1985 to September, 1987 at the agreed rate. The appellant had been duly paying rent under the lease since that date till 31st March, 1990 when a letter was written by the respondent to the appellant saying that the lease deed dated 19th October, 1987 had expired on 31st March, 1990 and asking for vacant possession (Exhibit E). A formal notice dated 8/12th June, 1990 was served by the respondent's advocate calling upon the appellant to vacate the premises. The appellant did not vacate.

4. A suit was filed by the respondent to the appellant for recovery of vacant possession of the premises and for mesne profits. The ground for eviction were two-fold :

(1) That by the indenture of lease dated 19th October, 1987 the appellant had agreed in writing to deliver up vacant possession of the demise premises on the expiry of the period of lease subsequent to the creation of the































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
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top