LAWS(CAL)-1990-5-45

HINDUATHAN COMMERCIAL CO Vs. BAIDYANATH BHATTACHARJEE

Decided On May 08, 1990
HINDUATHAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY Appellant
V/S
BAIDYANATH BHATTACHARJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No.952 of 85 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.206 of 1983.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant Hindusthan Commercial Company instituted a suit for possession of the disputed property being premises No.20, Mayfair Road (formarly 19, Mayfair Road, Calucutta). Their case was that one Smt. Bani Lahiri was the owner of the property. She demised the suit property in favour of the defendant/ respondent by a registered deed of lease dt. 24-11-62 for a period 21 years commencing from 31-10-62. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 1,000.00. The plaintiff company purchased the suit property from said Bani Lahiri by a registered kobala dt. 25-1-82 and became the absolute owner of the suit premises. Because of the purchase the lease aforesaid stood assigned in their favour for the remaining period of the term. They sent a notice of attornment to the defendant which was duly complied with and the defendant continued to pay lease rent to the plaintiff company. The lease stands determined by efflux of time. The plaintiff served a notice Calling upon the defendant to deliver vacant and peaceful possession. The defendant having failed they instituted a suit for possession and mesne profit at the rate of the rent.

(3.) The defendant-appellant contested the suit. His contention was that the suit is not maintainable. Defendant stated that in terms of the said registered lease he was authorised to opt out of the deed of lease by serving a notice after expiry of 5 years from the commencement of the lease. He claimed that he exercised such option by a written notice addressed to the landlady and is in possession of the suit property as a monthly tenant governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It was further contended that the ex-landlady accepted rent from the defendant as a monthly tenant.