Back
High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SEN, G. N. RAY
JATADHARI DAW, GRANDSONS - Appellant
Versus
RADHA DEBI - Respondent
ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL 239 Of 1978
Decided On : 09/06/1985
In this case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a tenant who holds over after the termination of a lease without the landlord's consent becomes a trespasser. The Court held that the landlord can sue the tenant for possession of the property as a trespasser without claiming a declaration of title. The Court further held that the suit should be valued based on the rent payable under the expired lease, and that the City Civil Court, Calcutta had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court also held that the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 did not apply to the case, as the land in dispute was not a thika tenancy within the meaning of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Radha Devi, filed a suit against the appellant, Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. (the company), and Jatadhari Daw and Grandsons (the dealer), claiming possession of premises No. 210, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, and mesne profits. The company had been in possession of the premises as a lessee for a period of 20 years, but the lease had expired on October 31, 1974. The company and the dealer continued to occupy the premises without the respondent's consent. The respondent valued the suit at over Rs. 51,000/- and filed it in the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The company and the dealer filed written statements, alleging that the dealer was a tenant of the company and that the company had become a statutory tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The trial court held that the company and the dealer were trespassers and granted a decree for possession and mesne profits to the respondent. The company and the dealer appealed to the High Court, which upheld the trial court's judgment. The company and the dealer then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the company and the dealer were trespassers and that the respondent was entitled to possession of the premises. The Court held that the company's lease had expired and that it had no right to continue in possession of the premises without the respondent's consent. The Court also held that the dealer was not a tenant of the company and that it had no right to occupy the premises. The Court further held that the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 did not apply to the case, as the land in dispute was not a thika tenancy within the meaning of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the company and the dealer were trespassers. 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to possession of the premises. 3. Whether the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 applied to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A tenant who holds over after the termination of a lease without the landlord's consent becomes a trespasser. 2. The landlord can sue the tenant for possession of the property as a trespasser without claiming a declaration of title. 3. The suit should be valued based on the rent payable under the expired lease. 4. The City Civil Court, Calcutta had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. The Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 does not apply to a case where the land in dispute is not a thika tenancy within the meaning of the Act.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment.
( 1 ) THE material facts not in dispute are, inter alia, that Radha Devi, the respondent, as the owner of premises No. 210, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), executed an indenture of lease on the 9th November, 1954 demising in favour of the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) the said premises for a period of 20 years on and from the 1st September, 1954 in consideration of a premium of Rs. 10,000/- and rent of Rs. 900/- per month on, inter alia, the following terms and conditions :-A) The Company would be at liberty to excavate a tank and construct of erect buildings, pumping plants and accessories in the said premises for carrying on trade in petroleum, petroleum products, oil and motor accessoriesb) The existing tanks, structures, plants and outfit in the said premises as shown in the plan annexed to the deed of lease were recorded as belonging to the company absolutely and the respondent would have no claim thereto or to any additional structures or equipment that may be erected or brought in the said premises by the company. C) On the expiration of the lease or determination thereof earlier the company would deliver possession of the said premises to the respondent and remove therefrom with reasonable dispatch all buildings structures, plants and other property of the company therein and would restore the land to its original condition at its own cost and expenses. D) The company would be at liberty to underlet the said premises or any part thereof to any local dealer or agent for all or any of the purposes of trade as aforesaid without the consent of the respondent. Jatadhari Daw and Grandsons, a firm (hereinafter referred to as the dealer), was in possession or occupation of the said premises during the currency of the said lease.
( 2 ) THE said lease expired by efflux of time on the 31st October, 1974. Successive notices were issued by and on behalf of the respondent on the 6th March, the 27th July, the 3rd September, and the 9th October, 1974 respectively calling upon the company to vacate the said premises and to deliver vacant possession thereof to the respondent on the expiry of the said lease.
( 3 ) THE company and the said dealer did not deliver up vacant possession of the said premises to the respondent on the expiry of the said lease and have continued in possession thereafter.
( 4 ) ON or about the 11th October, 1974, the respondent instituted a suit against the company and the said dealer claiming, inter alia, a decree for possession of the said premises and mesne profits, alternatively, an enquiry into mesne profits and a decree of such sums as may be found due and payable by the company and the said dealer.
( 5 ) IT was alleged in the plaint inter alia, that the dealer was claiming to be in possession of the said premises under an agency granted to them by the company to run a petrol pump in the said premises and that after the expiry of the said lease the respondent had neither accepted any rent nor assented to the continuance in possession of the said premises by the company or the dealer.
( 6 ) IT was further alleged that the company and the dealer were continuing in possession of the said premises wrongfully and without any right. The suit was started to be valued at over Rs. 51,000/- and it was contended that the same came within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
( 7 ) THE company filed its written statement in the suit on or about the 18th April, 1975 alleging, inter alia, that the dealer had been granted an agency by the company to run a petrol pump at the said premises and that after expiry of the said lease the company was continuing in possession of the said premises, on the terms and conditions, same as those in the lease as a monthly tenant.
( 8 ) ALTERNATIVELY, it was contended that the company was a statutory tenant within the meaning of the West Benga
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
