IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a trial to adjudicate disputed issues, especially regarding lease renewal and the status of the defendants as Thika tenants, and the relevance of the Thika Tenancy Act in determining their rights.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs Satya Narayan Bagla had granted a lease of 30 years w.e.f 1st April, 1966 in favour of predecessor-in- interest of the defendants by three indentures at a fixed rent per month. Said registered lease deeds embodied renewal clause for a further period of 21 years. Plaintiffs further case is since no request for renewal of the said lease deeds were received from the defendant, they served notice to quit upon the defendants to vacate the suit premises upon expiry of lease deeds. The defendant since failed to vacate the suit premises inspite of receipt of notice to quit upon expiry of the said lease deeds with efflux of time on 31st March, 1996, the plaintiff filed T.S. No. 152 of 2000 for recovery of khas possession and mesne profit, which is now pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Howrah.

2. The defendant filed written statement in the suit, wherein they have admitted about the execution of lease deeds but the defendants by filing a counter claim prayed for a declaration that the plaintiffs or lessors are legally bound to renew the lease dated 29th April, 1967 in favour of the defendants/lessee for another term of 21 years.

3. During pendency of the aforesaid suit the plaintiffs preferred an application under order XII rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the only defence raised by the defendants in their written statement is with regard to their entitlement to be granted a renewal of lease deed for a further period of 21 years upon expiry of the original tenure i.e. march 1996. Based on the contentions urged in the written statement, it would appear that the defendants have unequivocally admitted that even if the declaration sough for in the counter claim is allowed, admittedly their right to occupy the suit property under the renewal clause, would at the most, extended to the further term of 21 years from the date of expiry of the original tenure and they would cease to have any right to stay in the suit property after March, 2017 and as such plaintiff have prayed for part decree on such admission with regard to the prayer for recovery of possession only, made in terms of prayer 16(a) of the plaint. Learned court below after considering the submissions made by the parties has been pleased to reject plaintiffs aforesaid prayer for passing part decree by the order impugned.

4. Being aggrieved by that order Mr. Sakya Sen learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Defendant in paragraph 10 of the written statement has admitted that Mr. Bagla leased out the suit premises in favour of defendants’ predecessor for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 1st April, 1986 at an aggregate rate of Rs. 3000/- per month towards lease rent. Thereafter another lease deed was executed by Mr. Bagla in respect of the suit property dated 29th April, 1967 for a period of 30 years at a monthly rental of Rs. 500/- per month according to English calendar month and thereafter Rs. 1000/- per month from 1.12.1970 till the month of March 1997 for a further option of renewal for a period of 21 years as admitted in paragraph 21 of the written statement.

5. Accordingly Mr. Sen submits that the defence of the defendant/opposite party herein that they have exercised the option of renewal in terms of the renewal clause contained in the lease deed and accordingly he has made prayer for declaration in the counter claim and accordingly effect of the counter claim, even if, assumed to have granted, would confer a right on the defendants to occupy the suit property till march, 2017 when the period of 21 years had expired. In view of above defendants’ defence read with counter claim would necessarily imply that the defendants would have no right to occupy the suit property beyond March 2017. In fact the statement made in the written statement and the counter claim constitutes unqualified and unambiguous admission, which is restricted to the ti