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

2024 Supreme(Cal) 119

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.
Smt. Anindita Chowdhury and Ors. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Gouri Shankar Pal & Ors. - Defendants
CS No. 279 of 2002
Decided On : 27-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Purnendu Das, Mr. Meghanil Manna, Mrs. Gitika Mullick.
For the Defendant : Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Mr. Gaurab Kr. Das.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a thika tenancy at the time of the suit and the continuation of the tenancy on a month-to-month basis rendered the suit for eviction and recovery of possession non-maintainable.

Headnote:

Thika Tenancy - Suit Property - Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act 1981, West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Requisition) Act 2001 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act 1981, and the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Requisition) Act 2001. The court interpreted the definition of 'thika tenant' and 'pucca structure' under these acts and analyzed the impact of the amendments made in 2010. The court concluded that at the time of the suit, there was no thika tenancy and thus the suit property could not have been vested in the State under the relevant acts.

Fact of the Case:

The suit was for recovery of khas possession and mesne-profit. The original Plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property and sought recovery of possession after the original Defendant did not vacate the land following the expiry of the lease.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit property was not vested in the State under the relevant acts, and the suit did not disclose any cause of action for eviction and recovery of possession. Therefore, the court dismissed the suit on merit without cost.

Issues: The court considered issues related to the maintainability of the suit, disclosure of cause of action, non-joinder or misjoinder of parties, vesting of the suit property with the State, the applicable tenancy laws, entitlement to eviction decree and mesne-profit, and liability for mesne-profit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no thika tenancy at the time of the suit, and the tenancy was continuing on a month-to-month basis. As the tenancy was not determined or terminated, the suit did not disclose any cause of action for eviction and recovery of possession.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit on merit without cost, and ordered that the parties shall bear their respective costs.

JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.

1. This is a suit for recovery of khas possession along with mesne-profit.

2. The sum and substance of the plaint case is that one Ajit Kumar Ganguly, the father and predecessor-in-interest of the original Plaintiffs was the sole owner of the piece and parcel of land measuring about 7 cottah 6 chittacks 20 sq. ft. situated at 124A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata. This is the suit property. The said suit property along with structures standing thereon was subject matter of a lease dated 17.05.1946. By a registered deed of lease, as aforesaid, dated 17.05.1946, the said Ajit Kumar Ganguly demised the suit property to the original Defendant for a period of thirty years at a monthly rent of Rs.475/-. The intention of the lessor was that the suit property would be utilized for motion picture theatre purpose and building may be constructed thereon for such purpose would form part of the land and should belong to the lessor. During subsistence of the said lease, the parties executed another registered deed of lease dated 12.11.1946 under which it was agreed upon that the original Defendant, being the lessee therein, would have option of renewal of the lease of the suit property till 14.04.1993 on payment of monthly rent of Rs.1475/-. Thus the second lease deed dated 12.11.1946 introduced option for renewal of lease. The original Defendant regularly paid rent.

3. The original lease expired on 17.05.1976. Thereafter, the original lessee exercised his option of renewal of lease by an agreement in respect of the land and pucca building standing thereon. The renewed period of the lease expired on 14.04.1993 and rent was accepted by the lessor last for the month of March 1993. The original lessor expired on 06.08.1981 and his legal heirs and successors stepped into his shoes. After expiry of lease the original Defendant did not vacate the suit land leading the Plaintiff to institute the instant suit praying for recovery of possession of the suit premises: decree for Rs.1,34,16,000/- for wrongful occupation of the suit property till 24.06.2002 alternatively enquiry into mesne-profit along with other prayers.

4. The original Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein, apart from standard defenses, the original Defendant took plea that the later took a registered lease for thirty years from 17.05.1946 with option of renewal for ten years. The lease was in respect of vacant land measuring about 7 cottah 6 chittacks 29 sq. ft. at premises no. 124/1, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. During subsistence of this lease the lessor modified the original lease deed altering the period of lease from thirty years to forty years commencing from 17.05.1946 to 14.11.1986. There was an option to renewal of lease for another 7 years till 14.04.1993. The original Defendant executed another registered deed of lease on 29.04.1958 in respect of vacant land measuring about 2 cottah 9 chittacks, previously known as 1A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, with one Anadi Kumar Bose. This land was subsequently numbered as 23/2A, Dickson Lane, being a portion of the premises no. 124, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. This lease was executed by the original Defendant for construction of a cinema building. Both the leasehold lands were amalgamated resulting in an aggregated land of 9 cottah 15 chittacks 29 sq. ft. as premises no. 124/A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. The name of the original Defendant was mutated in the records of the then Calcutta Municipal Corporation and assessment order was passed showing amalgamation of the two premises. Prior to 1961-1962, kutcha structure was built by the original Defendant at the premises no. 124/A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. In the year 1961, the said two premises were amalgamated, and numbered as 124/A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. On permission of the then Calcutta Municipal Corporation, the original Defendant constructed a motion picture ci

                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