Indira Banerjee, J.

The question involved in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, whether the Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy, had jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the returns purported to be filed by the respondent No. 2 in respect of Premises No.40/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata – 700 009, where the Purabi Cinema is located, or start or proceed with Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 2013 (R/F No. 49/106) or entertain the application of the respondent Nos. 4 to 36, who claimed to be Bharatias at the said premises for being impleaded as parties to the said proceedings.

2. The writ petitioner, Shahi Enclaves Private Limited, claims to be the owner of Premises No.40/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata – 700 009.

3. One Satchidananda Dutt, since deceased was, during his life time, the sole owner of Premises No.31, Mirzapur Street, Calcutta, 38, Harrison Road, Calcutta and 40, Harrison Road, Calcutta, which properties were later, on amalgamation, numbered as Premises No.40, Harrison Road, Calcutta.

4. By a registered deed of lease dated 26th April 1919, the said Satchidananda Dutt leased out the said Premises Nos.38 and 40, Harrison Road, Calcutta and 31 Mirzapur Street, Calcutta, comprising an area of 2 bighas 4 cottahs approximately to Chimanlal Ganeriwalla and Brijlal Ganeriwalla for a term of 81 years, commencing on and from 1st May, 1919, on the terms and conditions specified in the said deed of lease.

5. The deed of lease inter alia provided that the lessees, Chimanlal Ganeriwalla and Brijlal Ganeriwalla would, at their own cost and at an outlay expense of Rs.1,60,000/- at the least, and within a space of six years from the date of the Indenture of lease, in a good, substantial and workmanlike manner erect, build and completely finish a three storied brick built house upon the demised land and would further from time to time, and at all times during the subsistence of the lease, at their own costs and charges, sufficiently and effectually repair and keep the said building in good condition and also would at the end or sooner determination of the lease, leave and yield up to the lessor, the demised land with the said building and erection.

6. The indenture of lease provided that if the lessees did not pay the agreed rent for three consecutive months after notice or if the lessees did not, at all times, keep or perform the covenants and agreements in the indenture required to be observed on their part, the lessor would be entitled to enter upon the demised premises or the structure or any part thereof and take possession thereof free from all estate interest, right or claim whatsoever of the lessees or any of them.

7. The Deed of Lease also provided that the lessees, their servants and agents would after due notice, allow the lessor, his servants and agents, during the continuance of the lease, free access to view and inspect the construction and the upkeep of the demised premises and to bring to the notice of the lessees any defect in the construction or the repair of the house and if reasonable, the lessees would rectify defects as pointed out by or on behalf of the landlord.

8. The Indenture of Lease further provided that, in the event of acquisition of the demised premises by the Government or the Calcutta Improvement Trust or any other Authority under the laws of acquisition in force, the lessor would not only be entitled to the whole of the compensation for the ground, but also to compensation for the structure that might be erected by the lessees, which would be divided between the lessor and the lessees rateably according to the expired and unexpired terms of the lease and the lessees would be entitled to compensation from the acquiring body for loss of earning, provided it did not affect the interest of the lessor in any way.

9. The terms and conditions of indenture of lease make it absolutely clear that even though the lessee would be in possession of the building, the ownership th