JNAN RANJAN SEN GUPTA Vs. ARUN KUMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court the only question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent is a thika tenant under Section 2 ( of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949.

(2.) On June 1, 1956, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (the latter, hereinafter to be described as the landlord) gave the land with which we are concerned in this appeal to the respondent (hereinafter to be described as the tenant) for occupation as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/for one year. One of the conditions of the tenancy was that "the premises shall not be used for any purpose other than keeping of the lorries as garage". Another condition of the tenancy was that "the lessee will on the expiration of one year peacefully surrender and yeild up vacant possession to the lessor." On july 29, 1958, the landlord's advocate sent a notice of eviction to the tenant to vacate and deliver possession of the land on the expiry of August 1958. The tenant through his advocate by a letter of August 29. 1958, denied liability for eviction assserting that there was no violation of any terms and conditions of the tenancy and since there was refusal to accept the rent by the landlord the tenant had been deposisting the rent every month from March 1958 under the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949 (briefly the Act) by which the tenancy was claimed to be governed. Thereafter a suit was filed by the landlord in the court of the 4th Munsif at Alipore on January 15, 1959.

(3.) It is not necessary to trace the history of the litigation covering this long period. It is sufficient to state that the High Court by its judgment on April 25, 1972, allowed the tenant's second appeal holding that he is a thika tenant within the meaning of Section 2 (5)of the Act. According to the High Court the tenant does not require any consent of the landlord to erect a structure on the land. The result was that the court of Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the matter being within the cognizance of the Controller appointed under the Act.