Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 723
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
Bhartia Steel & Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Dina Nath Parolia & Another
E.O.S. No. 58 of 1987 (Original Side)
Decided on: 09-12-2014
For the Plaintiff:Arindam Mukherjee, Ashok Kumar Awasthi, Aishwarya Kumar Awasthi, Advocates.
For the Defendants:Haradhan Banerjee, Debabrata Banerjee, Somali Mukhopadhyay, Advocates.
The dominant intention of the parties in a lease agreement is to be determined by construing the terms of the lease deed and the subsequent conduct of the parties.
Headnote:
LEASE - TENANCY - PREMISES - ROLLING MILL BUSINESS - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF LEASE DEED - DOMINANT INTENTION OF PARTIES - CONSTRUCTION OF LEASE - NOTICE OF TERMINATION - SUFFICIENCY - MESNE PROFITS - REFERENCE TO SPECIAL REFEREE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the owner of a steel rolling mill business, granted a lease of the business to the defendant no. 1 for a period of 10 years. The lease deed also included the land and building where the business was carried out. The defendants claimed that the tenancy was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and that they were entitled to protection under the said Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the dominant intention of the parties, as evidenced by the lease deed and the subsequent conduct of the parties, was to grant a lease of the steel rolling business, and not a lease of a premises within the meaning of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Therefore, the suit premises were not governed by the provisions of the said Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff leased out its steel rolling mills, factory and workshop to the defendants under the registered lease dated 25th March, 1970? 2. Whether the lease of steel rolling mills, factory and workshop to the defendants is governed by and under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956? 3. Whether the plaintiff was required to serve a notice u/s 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 upon the defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit properties as described in the schedules of the plaint? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits, if so at what rate? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if so to what extent? 7. Whether the suit is maintainable as framed? 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 9. What other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The dominant intention of the parties in a lease agreement is to be determined by construing the terms of the lease deed and the subsequent conduct of the parties. 2. Where the dominant intention of the parties is to grant a lease of a business, the lease will not be governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, even if the lease includes the land and building where the business is carried out. 3. A notice of termination of a lease is sufficient if it is addressed to the tenant who is in possession of the premises, even if there are multiple tenants.
Final Decision: The Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendants to vacate the suit premises. The Court also appointed a Special Referee to inquire into the quantum of mesne profits and damages receivable by the plaintiff from the defendants.
Debangsu Basak, J.
The plaintiff seeks eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. The plaintiff claims that, by a registered lease dated March 25, 1970 the plaintiff granted lease of its steel rolling business to the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 having committed various breaches of such lease, the plaintiff through its Advocate’s letter dated December 24, 1979 called upon the defendant no. 1 to vacate the suit premises on expiry of April 30, 1980. The plaintiff also claims that the defendants are guilty of construction as well as making addition and alteration at the suit premises without the consent of the plaintiff.
The defendants are contesting the instant suit. The defendant no. 2 is a partnership firm in which the defendant no. 1 is a partner.
The defendants have filed a written statement. The defendants have denied having any obligation to vacate the suit premises. The defendants claim that, the tenancy is governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
The parties invited the Court to settle the issues on November 24, 2014. The issues settled are as follows:-
1. Did the plaintiff lease out its steel rolling mills, factory and workshop situate at 106 & 106/1, Dharmatala Road, Salkia, Howrah, under the registered lease dated 25th March, 1970 to the defendants?
2. Is the lease of steel rolling mills, factory and workshop situate at 106 & 106/1, Dharmatala Road, Salkia, Howrah, to the defendants governed by and under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as alleged in paragraph nos.7 & 12 of the written statement?
3. Was the plaintiff required to serve a notice u/s. 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 upon the defendants?
4. Is the plaintiff entitled to recovery of the suit properties as described in the schedules of the plaint?
5. Is the plaintiff entitled to mesne profits, if so at what rate?
6. Is the plaintiff entitled to damages, if so to what extent?
7. Is the suit maintainable as framed?
8. Is the suit barred by limitation?
9. What other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?
The first three issues are taken up together. The first three issues are interlinked with each other in the facts of the case. In fact, Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned Advocate for the defendants opened his submission by submitting that he would address the Court on all the issues taken together. The lease between the parties is not disputed. The defendants admit to come into possession of the suit premises by the registered deed dated March 25, 1970. The defendants however claim that, their tenancy at the suit premises is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The plaintiff claims the lease to be a lease of a steel rolling business. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned Advocate for the defendants contends that, the relationship between the parties is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The tenancy of the defendants is protected under the provisions of the said Act of 1956.
He submits that, the plaintiff did not demise its business of rolling mill to the defendant no. 1 by the lease deed. He contends that, the lease deed does not disclose that, the business of the plaintiff was demised to the defendant no. 1. According to him, the lease deed is unambiguous. Since the lease deed is unambiguous, subsequent conduct of the parties with regard to the lease has no relevance. Mr. Banerjee contends that, the lease is for 10 years and, therefore, is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. He submits that, no notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was served by the plaintiff upon any of the defendants. He submits that, both the defendants are tenants. He refers to the deed of lease and to the renewal clause thereof. He submits that, no case has been made out by the plaintiff either in the plaint or in the evidence that, the defendants are liable to be evicted under the provisions of the West Ben
