A court may not grant a summary judgment when triable issues regarding the nature of rental agreements and tenant protections are present.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being GA No. 1 of 2019 (Old GA 626 of 2019) under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court praying for summary decree of eviction of the defendant from the suit property.

2. The defendant had also filed an application being GA No. 2 of 2019 (Old GA No. 669 of 2019) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint but at the time of hearing of the applications on 20th November, 2023, Learned Senior Advocate, Mr.

Jayanta Kumar Mitra has not pressed the said application and submitted to keep the issue alive to decide the same at the time of hearing of the suit.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for eviction from the suit scheduled property and for mesne profits.

4. Mr. Chayan Gupta, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submitted that it is evident from document that the last paid rent with respect to the suit property which has been let out for non-residential purpose is admittedly Rs. 10,080/- per month. He further submits that the defendant has also admitted that the rent on and from September’ 2015 was increased to Rs. 10,080/- per month.

5. Mr. Gupta submitted that the monthly rent is Rs. 10,080/- and thus the parties are governed by the Transfer of Property Act , 1882 and not governed under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act , 1997. He submits that the tenancy between the parties is governed under the Transfer of Property Act , 1882 and there is no registered Deed of lease between the parties and thus the defendant is lessee in respect of the suit property month to month which is determinable by a 15 days’ notice to quit in accordance with Section 106 of the said Act.

6. Mr. Gupta submitted that though there is a lease deed between the parties and the tenancy period is more than one year but is not adequately stamped and also not registered and thus the said documents cannot been taken as an evidence.

7. Mr. Gupta submits that the last paid rent by the defendant with respect to the suit property is Rs. 10,080/- per month and the plaintiff had also issued notice to quit to the defendant and thus there is no defence of the defendant to defend the case. He submits that the rent includes Municipal rates and taxes and commercial charges and from the last paid rent bills and cheques in respect of the same issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff it is evident that the parties had all along treated the rent as Rs. 10,080/- per month. He submits that the defendant has admitted in paragraphs 9 and 13 of GA No. 669 of 2019 that the plaintiff has raised combined bills for rent, municipal taxes and commercial charges against the defendant.

8. Mr. Gupta submits that the defendant has no defence and as such it is a fit case to pass summary decree against the defendant by directing the defendant to vacate the premises and to hand over the same to the plaintiff. He submits that as regards to the mesne profits Special Referee be appointed to enquire into the matter to ascertain the mesne profit.

9. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Learned Senior Advocate representing the defendant submitted that on 29th June, 1970, the plaintiff had granted lease to the defendant in respect of the portion of 1st floor of the Premises No. 9A, Esplanade Street, Kolkata- 700 069 admeasuring 4000 square feet and one staff room at the back building of the said premises on the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 29th June, 1970 for a period of 25 years commencing from 1st August, 1970 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,125/- plus occupier’s share of rates and taxes calculated at the 16 ¾ % of the monthly rent amounting to Rs. 188.44 paisa + Rs. 35/- per month for one garage space. 10. Mr. Mitra su