The court held that expired leases do not create continuing tenancies without mutual consent, rejecting claims based on former rental agreements and emphasizing statutory authority for tenure determination.

JUDGMENT :

SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.

1. This is a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, mesne profits and other reliefs.

2. The nutshell of the plaint case is that one Nagendra Nath Sett, by an indenture of trust dated 12/03/1946 created a trust estate appointing his wife Kshetramani Dassi as one of the trustees. The said Kshetramani Dassi, since deceased, executed a registered deed of lease on 11/10/1966 commencing on and from 01/09/1966 for a period of nine years at a monthly rent, in favor of the Defendant No. 3, a partnership firm. This lease was executed in respect of a piece and parcel of land admeasuring 6 cottahs 9 chittacks 31 sq. ft. with structures standing thereon situated at 45, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata (“the suit property” in short). This tenancy became subject matter of Ejectment Suit No. 806 of 1976 instituted in the City Civil and Sessions Court of Calcutta.

3. The original Plaintiffs purchased the suit property from one of the beneficiaries of the aforesaid trust Dhirendra Nath Sett, by a registered deed of sale dated 18/07/1981. Thereafter, the original Plaintiffs were arrayed as defendants in the aforesaid pending suit. The suit was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution on 22/03/1991.

4. The Defendant No. 1 is the State of West Bengal and the Defendant No. 2 is the Thika Controller. Sometime immediately before 20/01/1995 the Defendant No. 1 and the Defendant No. 2 declared that the Defendant No. 1, being the State of West Bengal, became the owner of the suit property by way of vesting under the provisions of the Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 (in short, “the Act of 1981”). The Defendant No. 3 was recognized as a thika tenant. The Defendant No. 3 approached the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to recognize and record the Defendant No. 3 as thika tenant. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the original Plaintiffs bearing number A/XIV/94 dated 20/01/1995 stating that the Defendant No. 3 had applied for recording name as a thika tenant on the strength of some challans issued by the Defendant No. 2 in favor of the Defendant No. 3. In a reply letter dated 15/05/1995, the original Plaintiffs denied any right of the Defendant No. 3 as thika tenant. Despite the same, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation recorded the name of the Defendant No. 3 as a thika tenant. Against this, the original Plaintiffs preferred a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court where interim relief was granted. In appeal, the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and directed that the parties should get their respective titles decided by appropriate forum. This order was passed on 03/10/1996.

5. It is further averred in the plaint that since the defendants jointly and severally purported to deny the right, title and interest of the original Plaintiffs by setting up adverse title, the original Plaintiffs determined the tenancy of the Defendant No. 3 in terms of a notice dated 12/03/1997 and called upon the Defendant No. 3 to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises to the original Plaintiffs on expiry of the month of the April, 1997. Since the Defendant No. 3 neglected and failed to hand over possession of the suit premises, the instant suit was instituted by the original Plaintiffs praying for declaration that the original Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit premises; decl