IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that tenancy rights under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are not inheritable beyond five years from the original tenant's death, particularly in non-residential tenancies.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

Though the application for stay was listed before us but the point urged by the Counsel for the appellant inculcated in as that the same being the pure question of law can be decided on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and the other materials forming part of the record of the Trial Court annexed to the said application and thus, we invited the Counsels to argue on the merit of the instant appeal.

2. The facts are more or less undisputed to the effect that the tenancy was created by the owner/landlord of the premises namely, Sunil Ranjan Das in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant on the basis of the tenancy agreement dated 30th October, 1973 in respect of a shop room measuring more or less 160 square feet on the ground floor of the premises No. P-244, CIT Road, Scheme VI M, PS – Phoolbagan, Kolkata – 700054 at a rental of Rs. 60/- payable according to English calendar. The tenancy agreement marked Exhibit–A in the suit would reveal that a monthly tenancy was created in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant namely, Sri Kishore Khanna in respect of a suit premises for retail shop and manufacture of cleaning/soap powder without installing any heavy machinery thereat. The terms and conditions embodied in the said tenancy agreement leaves no ambiguity in the mind that it is a non- residential tenancy. The plaintiff/respondent categorically asserted that the said Sudhir Ranjan Das, since deceased became the owner of the suit premises after separation thereof on the basis of a deed of partition dated 27.09.1962 from the other co-owner and expired on 06.11.1997. During his lifetime the said Sudhir Ranjan Das made and published his last Will dated 07.10.1988 appointing one Durgapada Dey as an executor to the said Will. The said Sunil Ranjan Das bequeathed the entire property unto and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The said Will was duly probated before the Court of law and upon a grant of probate, the deed of assent was executed and registered on 07.04.2010 by the executor in favour of the sole beneficiary i.e., the plaintiff/respondent. Immediately after the probate having granted to the said Will and assent to the legacy accorded by the executor, the suit for recovery of possession against the present appellant was filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Sealdah which was registered as Title Suit no. 12 of 2014. Initially the suit was basically founded on the assertion that the appellants are a trespassers having illegally occupying the suit premises but subsequently an amendment was brought by inserting Paragraph 12A to the plaint to the effect that after the death of the original tenant namely, Kishore Khanna died prior to coming in force of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the status of the appellant, who intermeddles with the suit property, is nothing but a trespasser upon expiry of 5 years from the date of coming in force of the said Act. The meaningful reading of the written statement filed by the appellant would reveal that a defence was taken that after the expiration of the period of the original tenancy, the daughter of the testator accepted the appellant as a tenant and continued to receive the rent upon issuance of the rent receipts. What is sought to be contended by the appellant is that on the death of the original tenant, a new tenancy was created by the daughter of the testator which diminished the concept of inheritance or in other words the rigour of the definition of “tenant” engrafted under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is not applicable.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid stands taken by the parties, the suit went for trial and the respective witnesses stood firm on their respective stands taken in the pleadings. The Trial Court decreed the suit solely on the ground that the definition of a “tenant” given under Section 2(g) of the said Act makes the appellant as trespasser after expi