Back
2012 (1) Supreme 501
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Ramdas Bansal (D) — Appellant
versus
Kharag Singh Baid & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.684 of 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.25484 of 2007)
Decided on : 19-01-2012
(1975) 2 SCC 526 – Relied upon
(b) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 109 – Suit for possession of leased property – Plot number and map in the lease deed not exactly matching with the property as on date – Prayer for rectification of the lease deed – Held, when there was no difficulty in identifying the property even without rectification, High Court rightly allowed such rectification. (Paras 26 and 27)
2 Calcutta Weekly Notes, 260 – Referred
(c) Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 – Section 2(1) & (5) r/w section 3(8) – The lease deed being for a period of 21 years, a tenant could not claim to be thika tenant in terms of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancies and Land (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 or the West Bengal (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 – Further as the structure was constructed before enactment of any of the aforesaid Acts, these provisions were not attracted. (Paras 30 and 33)
(2006) 8 SCC 344 – Relied upon impliedly
AIR 1987 Cal 326; AIR 1918 Cal 809 – Referred
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI, rule 27 – When the provisions for thika tenancy did not apply, prayer for bringing additional material to show that the person concerned was a thika tenant was rightly rejected. (Para 33)
Facts of the case:
1. This case relates to leases of property spanning a period of three generations and recovery of possession thereof.
2. It also relates to interpretation of Thika tenancy in West Bengal.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Court held that when there is no difficulty in identifying the property even without rectifying the transfer instrument, such rectification should be permitted (!) (!) .
Leases exceeding a period of 12 years are not covered by the 1949 Act, and thus, the provisions of that Act do not apply to such long-term leases (!) (!) .
The lease in question, being for 21 years, was not subject to the restrictions imposed by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, or subsequent Acts, as the lease was executed before the enactment of these laws (!) (!) .
The relationship between the parties was determined to be outside the scope of Thika Tenancy laws due to the nature of the lease and the construction of permanent structures prior to the relevant legislation (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the law applicable to the case was the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and not the Thika Tenancy Acts, since the lease was for a period exceeding 12 years and structures were permanent (!) (!) .
The application for rectification of the lease schedule was dismissed on the grounds of limitation, as the suit for rectification was filed more than twenty-one years after the lease was executed, and rectification was considered incidental to the primary relief of possession (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the description of the property in the lease and the suit was sufficiently clear, and both courts found no difficulty in identifying the premises, leading to the rejection of the plea that the suit was not maintainable due to description discrepancies (!) (!) .
The judgment confirmed that the lease was for a specific property, and the parties' understanding of the property was consistent with the documents on record, including the lease deed (!) (!) .
The Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that the lease was outside the scope of Thika Tenancy laws and that the applicable law was the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (!) .
The Court imposed costs on the appellant for pursuing a misconceived appeal, emphasizing the correctness of the lower courts' decisions based on the facts and law (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. From the materials on record, it appears that premises No. 91, Mahatma Gandhi Road and premises No.6, Sambhu Chatterjee Street, Calcutta, together comprised lands on a portion whereof a building was erected and now known the “Grace Cinema Hall”. Out of the said two plots, premises Nos.91-A, Mahatma Gandhi Road and premises No.6A, Sambhu Chatterjee Street were carved out. Out of the said lands, one Atal Coomar Sen was the owner of lands measuring 3 Cottahs 3 Chittacks and 30 Sq. feet, situated at 91-A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta, which was leased to one Gunput Rai Bagla and Radha Kissen Bagla with the right to construct a building thereupon, for a period of twenty years commencing from 1st April, 1905. Pursuant to the right granted in the lease, the Baglas constructed a building on the demised premises. On 3rd March, 1908, a registered Agreement was entered into between Atal Coomar Sen, Gunput Rai Bagla and Radha Kissen Bagla and one Cowasji Pallenjee Khatow, whereby the Baglas surrendered their rights for the unexpired period of the lease with regard to the land to Atal Coomar Sen, while the structure standing on the land was sold to Cowasji Pallenjee Khatow. Atal Coomar Sen granted a fresh lease of the land to Cowasji Pallenjee Khatow for 42 years from 1st April, 1908. Atal Coomar Sen died on 5th November, 1927, leaving behind his son Achal Coomar Sen, who sold the said land to Aditendra Nath Mitter, Anitendra Nath Mitter, Ajitendra Nath Mitter, Ashitendra Nath Mitter and Abanitendra Nath Mitter, on 12th May, 1939. On 17th June, 1943, M/s. Moolji Sicka & Company, which had succeeded to the interest of Cowasji Pallenjee Khatow, by a registered Agreement assigned the unexpired portion of the Lease Deed to Chagganlal Baid and Parashmal Kankaria. On 6th October, 1945, Parashmal Kankaria assigned his share in the property in favour of Chagganlal Baid.
3. On 21st Decembr, 1947, the Mitters filed Suit No.22 of 1948 in the Calcutta High Court against Chagganlal Baid and Parashmal Kankaria for their ejectment from the suit premises. During the pendency of the said suit, on 15th January, 1958, Chagganlal Baid executed six Deeds of Settlement in favour of his six sons in regard to the said property. On 19th September, 1972, Kharag Singh Baid and Barhman Baid as Trustees in the Deed of Settlement dated 15th January, 1958, granted a lease in favour of one Ramdas Bansal for a period of twenty one years commencing from 1st November, 1972, in respect of :
a) House and building standing on 1 bigha 3 cottahs 14 chittacks and 30 sq. feet of land comprising premises No.91, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta (being the freehold portion) and
b) House and building standing on 3 cottahs 30 sq. feet of land comprised in 91-A, Mahatma Gandhi Road.
4. The said transactions prompted the Mitters to file Suit No.441 of 1973 in the Calcutta High Court against Chagganlal Baid for recovery of possession of the said property. The Respondents herein, in their turn, filed C.S. No.102 of 1994, against the Appellant, Ramdas Bansal, praying for rectification of the misdescription of the property in the Deed of Lease dated 19th September, 1972 and for recovery of possession of the lands in question.
5. It is the specific case of the Appellant in the instant appeal that the property mentioned in the First Schedule to the plaint contained in Part I and Part II is not identical to the area shown in the map annexed to the Deed of Lease. Apart from the above, several other contentions were raised in the written statement filed by the Appellant, namely,
(i) that no notice of eviction, as envisaged under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, had been given before filing of the eviction suit;
(ii) the particulars given in Parts I and II of the First Schedule and the map as Annexure B to the plaint were incorrect;
(iii) the lease had never been acted upon by the parties and the same was, by necessary impli
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
