Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO
Molina Dey – Appellant
Versus
Runa Kundu – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the judgment in the case of Smt. Molina Dey vs. Runa Kundu was delivered on 12-02-2025 and involved the rejection of the plaint due to improper classification of the suit under relevant tenancy and commercial laws (!) (!) (!) (!) . The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the applicable laws, particularly the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which determined that protections for non-residential tenants are limited to five years following the tenant's death, and that the suit was improperly filed in the non-commercial division (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
There is no indication within the provided document that this judgment has been overruled or altered by a subsequent ruling. The document states that the application for rejection of the plaint was granted and the suit was returned to the appropriate court (!) (!) .
Therefore, based on the available information, the judgment in the case of Molina Dey vs. Runa Kundu has not been overruled recently.
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. The defendant has filed the present application being G.A. No. 9 of 2023 in C.S. No. 220 of 2021 praying for rejection of plaint. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for eviction, recovery of khas possession and mesne profit.
2. The contention raised by the defendant in the present application is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is a commercial suit but has filed in the Non-Commercial Division. The defendant is running business in the suit premises. It is also the contention of the defendant that the suit property is for non-residential purpose and under the provisions of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, protection is granted only for residential purpose. It is also the contention that the husband of the defendant, namely, Prabir Kumar Kundu left behind his wife, the defendant herein, one son and one daughter but the plaintiff has not made all the legal heirs of Prabir Kumar Kundu as defendants.
3. On 28th April, 1993, the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff have jointly had purchased the suit properties. The husband of the plaintiff died on 5th June, 2008 leaving behind the plaintiff as his only le
Protection under tenancy laws for non-residential tenants is limited to five years post-death of the original tenant; improper classification of suit leads to jurisdictional dismissal.
A successor of a deceased tenant has no tenancy rights if the original tenant's death is not communicated, leading to eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
Defendants lose tenancy rights after five years from the original tenant's death; plaintiffs' eviction order upheld based on lack of legal tenancy.
Tenancy rights under a Will cannot override specific contractual terms prohibiting assignment without consent, rendering unauthorized occupation invalid under the Public Premises Act.
A suit claiming eviction due to illegal occupation does not constitute a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, requiring only the Controller to determine thika tenancy.
The dominant intention in lease agreements is critical in determining whether a lease pertains to a business or merely a premises tenancy under applicable tenancy laws.
The court affirmed that a licensee cannot claim protected tenancy without proving exclusive possession as of 1 February 1973 under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act.
A Bharatia under a Thika Tenant is not a tenant within the meaning of the Premises Tenancy Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
