ASHOK KUMAR MANDAL Vs. RABINDRA NATH BANERJEE DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the second appeal of the appellant in limine.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant took a lease for a period of 10 years on 11/4/1960. It was a registered lease deed. However, on 25-5-1960 the parties executed another lease deed for a period of 20 years. Yet another lease deed was executed between the parties on 31/5/1963 for a period of 15 years, taking effect from 11/4/1960. It is indicated on behalf of the respondents that the subsequent lease deeds were in supersession of the previous ones. According to the lease deed dated 31/5/1963, the period of lease came to an end sometime in 1975. Hence, a notice for eviction was served upon the appellant which was not complied with. Hence, a suit was filed on 22/8/1975. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court held that the subsequent lease deeds had not affected the original thika tenancy of the lessee. Therefore, it was held that thika tenancy could not be terminated by giving a notice. The respondent went up in appeal against the judgment and order passed by the trial court. The first appellate court by its judgment and order dated 29/4/1983 allowed the appeal. It was held that the trial court erred in finding that in view of the first lease deed the second lease could not be executed or any further execution of lease could not change the terms of the earlier lease. It has further been held that in case of execution of a fresh lease during the currency of the earlier one, there would be implied surrender of the earlier lease deeds. Hence, the lease deed dated 31/5/1963 for a period of 15 years with effect from 11/4/1960 was a valid lease and this lease deed coming to an end with efflux of time in 1975, a suit was rightly filed by the respondent. Ultimately, the appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The second appeal preferred by the appellant before the high Court was dismissed in limine.

(3.) So far as the view taken by the first appellate court is concerned, in our view it needs no interference.