CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Krishna Rao, J.
Ram Nath Jhunjhunwala – Plaintiff
versus
Saha & Company – Defendant
IA No. GA 2 of 2022 in CS 156 of 2017
Decided on 12.4.2023
(A) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - Section 2(g) – “tenant” - whether the defendant is a tenant within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - Thus in those cases where the lease expired by efflux of time but the lessee is continuing in possession he/she would not come within the purview of the definition of a “tenant” under Section 2(g) of the Act of 1997. (Para 29)
(B) Landlord Tenant – recovery of possession - mesne profit – Entitlement of Owner - The plaintiff, before expiry of lease period, had issued a notice dated 5th October, 2015 to the defendant calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises and to handover possession of the premises to the plaintiff upon completion of the period of 21 years. In the said notice, the plaintiff also informed to the defendant that in default suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted. In spite of receipt of notice and termination of lease, the defendant has not vacated the suit property. It is also found from record that the defendant though had received writ of summons but had not filed written statement – Therefore, that the defence set up by the defendant is illusory and sham, thus the plaintiff is entitled to get decree in terms of prayer (a) of the Masters Summons for mesne profit – Appeal allowed. [Paras 27 to 30].
(C) West Bengal Thika Tenant (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 – Thika Tenancy – Defence claimed by Defendant – If can be countenanced - , the defendant has filed an application under Section 5 (3) read with Section 9, 10 and 11 of the West Bengal Thika Tenant (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001, the defendant has filed the said application before the Rent Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy on 11th October, 2017 i.e. after expiry of the lease period and even after institution of the present suit. The defendant has not filed any documents which would show the said premises are Thika property. The Assessment Book of the Central Record Department of Kolkata Municipal Corporation reveals that the suit property was described as house and shop. The plaintiff and predecessors-in-interest have paid adequate tax in terms of the West Bengal Multistoried Building Tax Act, 1975 – therefore, a mere deposit of rent with the Thika Controller cannot ipso facto create a Thika tenancy. [Para 26].
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Krishna Rao, J.—The plaintiff has filed the instant application for pronouncement of final Judgment against the defendant under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court for recovery of vacant, peaceful, khas and physical possession of the suit premises being premises No. 207, Maharshi Debendra Road, Kolkata - 700007. The trustees of one Ganpatrai Khemka Charitable Trust, granted lease to Radha Kishan Jhunjhunwala (since deceased) i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, by an indenture of lease dated 23rd April, 1962, which was duly registered before the Registrar of Assurance, Calcutta in the year 1962, in consideration of monthly rent, reserved and secured therein, in respect of suit property for a period of 51 years, with the option for renewal for a further period of 20 years, from the date of expiry of the said term of 51 years, with the condition that the said Radha Kishan Jhunjhunwala shall build a permanent structure upon such demised premises. Plaintiff has exercised his option to extend its original lease for another 20 years, and the same is still subsisting.
2. The Trustees of Ganpatrai Khemka Charitable Trust transferred the ownership right of the said premises to one Jhunjhunwala Resorts Limited by way of four Deed of Conveyances in the year 1992. Radha Kishan Jhunjhunwala continued as lessee under the Jhunjhunwala Resorts Limited, on the same terms and conditions as contemplated in the lease of 1962. Radha Kishan Jhunjhunwala entered into an oral agreement with the defendant, for a sub-lease and sub-demise open space, being the suit premises for a period of 21 years commencing from 31st December, 1994.
3. The said Radha Kishan Jhunjhunwala died on 13th October, 1996. In terms of the Will dated 30th March, 1981, the plaintiff being the sole executor is managing the entire estate, including the premises left behind by the Radha Kishan Jhunjhunwala.
4. The plaintiff herein had executed a formal registered Indenture of Lease Deed dated 21st January, 1997 in favour of the defendant for a period of 21 years from 31st December, 1994. The sub-lease dated 21st January, 1997 was given effect and the period of 21 years was completed on 1st January, 2016 and thus the lease terminated by efflux of time. Before expiry of lease period, the plaintiff had issued a notice dated 5th October, 2015 to the defendant calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff upon completion of the period of 21 years. In the said notice, the plaintiff also informed to the defendant, that in default, suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted. Inspite of receipt of notice and termination of lease, the defendant has not vacated the suit property.
5. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Learned Advocate, representing the plaintiff submits that the defendant has no defence whatsoever to the claim of the plaintiff. He further submits that the defendant has not filed written statement till date.
6. Mr. Ghosh submits that the defence raised by the defendant with regard to the overvaluation of the suit cannot deter this Hon’ble Court from passing a summary judgment. He further submits that acceptance of plea of overvaluation alleged by the defendant would encourage the tenant to permit him to carry on a dilatory litigation without compensating the landlord for the loss suffered by the landlord.
7. Mr. Ghosh submits that the defendant has raised the ground that the suit property is a Thika property but the said plea will not stand as both applications filed by the defendant before the Thika Controller as well as the notice for spot verification issued by the Thika Controller are subsequent to the institution of the instant suit for eviction.
8. Mr. Ghosh submits that the defendant has relied upon an Indenture of Lease Deed dated 14th January, 1974 which also reveals that the defendant has inducted in the suit property as lessee by the plaintiff and the defendan
Thika Tenancy - a mere deposit of rent with the Thika Controller cannot ipso facto create a Thika tenancy.
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 evi....
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 determi....
A Bharatia under a Thika Tenant is not a tenant within the meaning of the Premises Tenancy 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 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, an....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.