IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of lease determination and the inclusion of municipal taxes in rent under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and 1997.

JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.:

1. The instant suit, namely, CS 244 of 2008 has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant claiming for a decree for eviction against each of the Defendants praying decree for eviction and recovery of khas possession; decree of arrear of rent upto 31.12.2005 direction to the Defendant to pay property taxes; mesne-profit perpetual injunction along with other prayers. The Plaintiff is the Party Receiver in the present suit property, the appointment being made in CS 222 of 2001 being a partition suit among the co-owners of premises no. 15B, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700001.

2. The nutshell of the plaint case is that the Defendant no. 1 was inducted as lessee in the back portion of the premises no. 14 and 15, Old Court House Street, now known as 15B, Hemanta Bose Sarani, Kolkata – 700001 (the suit premises), in terms of a registered deed of lease dated 5th March, 1965 for a period of 99 years commencing on and from 1st January, 1962 on payment of monthly rent of Rs.1400/- with further stipulation of enhancement by Rs.100/- on expiry of every successive nine years. Lease was determined in terms of a notice dated 23rd November, 2005 with effect from expiry of the month of December 2005, that is to the lease stood determined with effect from 1st January, 2006. In spite of determination of lease the Defendant did not vacate the suit premises compelling the Plaintiff to institute the instant suit.

3. The Defendants contested the suit by filing separate written statements. Defendant no.1, in the written statement denied all allegations. It is specific case of the Defendant no. 1 that it is a case of determination of lease by forfeiture but the notice dated 23.11.2005, determining the lease, is silent on the grounds of forfeiture. It is further pleaded that tenancy of the Defendant no. 1 is governed by West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. No notice determining tenancy was served upon the Defendant no. 1 under the Act 1997. The Defendant no. 1 also refuted the plaint case on various other grounds raising the issue of maintainability of the suit.

4. The Defendant no. 2 also contested the suit by filing separate written statement. The Defendant no. 2 defended the suit on the grounds that the said answering Defendant being sub-lessee is not liable to be evicted; that the said answering Defendant has independent rights along with other pleas as defence.

5. The suit proceeded with and witness action began. After examination of plaintiff’s witness, an application was filed, namely, GA 340 of 2020 by the Defendant No.2. praying for hearing of the suit on preliminary issues, namely, Issue No.1 and 6. The said application was disposed of in terms of Order dated 19th February, 2020 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It was ordered that Issue no. 1 and 6 shall be treated as preliminary issues and these issues should be taken up first. Accordingly, date was fixed for arguments of the parties on these issues.

6. It would be convenient to look at the said issues first.

Issue no. 1 : “Whether the instant suit is barred by law and particularly by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as alleged in the paragraphs 1 (a) – (c) of the written statement of the Defendant?”

………..

Issue no. 6 : “Whether the lease agreement dated 5th March, 1965 stands terminated? If so, from what date?”

7. Mr. Bose, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant no. 2, 6, 11, 12 and 13 argued that admittedly rent is payable at a rate of Rs.1900/- per month. The original rent was Rs.1400/-. Although there is a registered deed of lease, the said lease has been determined earlier. Had the lease been allowed to run its full life, it would have been governed by Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Sooner or earlier determination of lease coupled with rate of rent being Rs. 1900/- per month, in view of ratio of Prakashwati Chopra Vs. Shibaji Mitra, [(2007) (1) CLJ (Cal) 47] bring the tenancy within ambit of the West Bengal Premises Te