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

2014 Supreme(Cal) 181

High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE & ARIJIT BANERJEE, JJ.
Amala Palit & Another
Versus
Ratna Bose & Others
A.P.D. No. 213 of 2005 & C.S. No. 616 of 1990 (Original Side)
Decided on: 10-04-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:Deba Prasad Bhattacharya, Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Joydip Kar, Anirban Kar, Suvadeep Sen, Advocates.

A lease beyond twelve years is not covered by the Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 or the Thika Tenancy Act, 1981.

Headnote:

THIKA TENANCY - LEASE - THIKA TENANCY ACT, 1949 - THIKA TENANCY ACT, 1981 - SECTION 3(8) - SECTION 21 - CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - SECTION 17 - Whether the appellant is a Thika tenant under the Thika controller? - Effect of the Thika Tenancy Act on the subject tenancy.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were tenants in a property owned by the Mukherjees. In 1964, the Mukherjees leased out a portion of the property to the appellants for 21 years. The lease expired in 1985. In 1966, the Mukherjees sold the property to the Ghoshes. In 1971, the Ghoshes filed a suit against the Mukherjees and the appellants, in which Sri Bimal Chandra Mitra was appointed receiver. The suit was dismissed in 1975. In 1983, Nirmal Ghosh, one of the Ghoshes, filed a partition suit, which was settled by the parties. By the terms of the settlement, Pritikana Mitra, the wife of Sri Bimal Chandra Mitra, became the sole owner of the property. In 1983, Sri Bimal Chandra Mitra filed an eviction suit against the appellants. The appellants contested the suit, claiming that they were Thika tenants and that the suit was not maintainable. The trial court rejected the appellants' arguments and decreed the eviction suit. The appellants appealed to the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the subject tenancy was not covered by the Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 or the Thika Tenancy Act, 1981. The court also held that the appellants were not prejudiced by the fact that Sri Bimal Chandra Mitra, the receiver in the partition suit, did not disclose his wife's interest in the property. The court dismissed the appeal.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant is a Thika tenant under the Thika controller? 2. If so, what would be the effect in the present case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The subject tenancy was not covered by the Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 or the Thika Tenancy Act, 1981, as it was a lease beyond twelve years. 2. The appellants were not prejudiced by the fact that Sri Bimal Chandra Mitra, the receiver in the partition suit, did not disclose his wife's interest in the property.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.

FACTS:

1. Subject property being premises No. 24A Balaram Ghosh Street Calcutta was an old building at North Calcutta owned by Mukherjee family. By registered Deed of Lease dated July 25, 1964 Mukherjees leased out a portion of the said building being open and vacant courtyard at the back portion of the building for twenty one years in favour of the appellants. The lease expired by efflux of time in July 1985. As a condition of the lease, the appellants were permitted to raise structure on the said vacant land. However, at the end of the lease, structure, if any, would belong to the owner. Sri Bimal Chandra Mitra an advocate of this Court witnessed the said execution. He also helped the parties in preparation and execution of the document as claimed by the appellants. In 1966 Mukherjees sold their interest in the property to Ghoshes being the respondent’s predecessors. One Amiya Ghosh, Dr. Alok Kumar Ghosh, brothers by relation, and one Nirmal Mitra their brother-inlaw (Sister’s husband) purchased the property. In 1971 Nirmal, Amiya and Alok filed a suit being suit No. 327 of 1971 as against the Mukherjees and the predecessor of the appellants where Sri Bimal Chandra Mitra was appointed receiver. The suit was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution in 1975. In 1983 Nirmal filed a partition suit that the parties settled by filing a Terms of Settlement. In the Terms of Settlement, the parties agreed, Sri Bimal Chandra Mitra who was acting as Commissioner of partition and receiver, would stand discharged from the post of Commissioner of partition however, he would continue to act as receiver so long he could not collect the compensation money for a portion of the said premises that the Corporation acquired through an acquisition proceeding. We are told, the parties have not been able to collect the compensation as yet. During pendency of the partition suit Dr. Alok Ghosh one of the co-sharers died a bachelor leaving him surviving his heirs on intestacy that would include Smt. Pritikana Mitra the wife of Sri Bimal Chandra Mitra. By the Terms of Settlement, the parties relinquished their rights in respect of the suit property in favour of Pritikana in exchange of her share in other property as also owelty money, as claimed by the respondent. By such process, Pritikana became the sole owner as claimed by her successor in interest after her death. When we heard the appeal Bimal Chandra Mitra had already died, so had Pritikana.

2. The present lis would relate to an eviction proceeding as against the appellants. Bimal Chandra Mitra filed the suit as receiver in suit No. 169 of 1983 however, during pendency of the suit there was change in ownership as discussed above and ultimately the heirs of Bimal and Pritikana the present respondents came to be substituted. The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement by taking various pleas including the plea of Thika Tenancy. It did not appeal to the learned Judge. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant took an additional ground challenging the status of the plaintiff being Bimal Chandra Mitra and/or his successor in interest claiming under him.

CONTENTIONS:

APPELLANTS:

3. Mr. Debaprasad Bhattacharya learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, while elaborating his submission contended, Sri Mitra committed fraud on Court by concealing the fact, he and/or his family members had personal interest in the suit property. Hence, he should not have acted as receiver being a Court officer, without disclosing his status to the Court. While elaborating his submission, Mr. Bhattacharjee produced the original lease that would show, Sri Mitra acted as the advocate for the parties. He also witnessed the document hence, he could not have filed the suit on behalf of the owners as receiver. He continued as a receiver only for the purpose of collection of the compensation money. He did not disclose, his wife Pritikana subsequently acquired 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 Back to top