RAJ KISHORE THAKUR Vs. RID KARAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for eviction under Sec. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and is directed against the order dated February 05, 2019 passed by the 5th Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Howrah in the said suit being Title Suit No. 262 of 1993.

(2.) The defendants in the said suit filed an application under sec. 17 (2) (2A) (b) of the said Act of 1956 disputing the existence of relationship of landlords and tenants between the parties to the suit and prayed determination thereof. In the said application, the defendants contended, inter alia, that the plaintiffs, the opposite parties herein are claiming right, title and interest over the suit property on the strength of a deed of lease executed by the superior landlord Sri Sri Laxmi Narayan Jew and others in favour of their predecessor-in-interest and being empowered by the clauses of the said deed of lease, the said predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had inducted the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants as sub-tenants in the suit property but during the continuance of the said tenancy the period of said lease since has expired by efflux of time the relationship of landlords and tenants between the plaintiffs and the defendants has ceased to exist and by virtue of the clauses of the said deed of lease the defendants have become direct tenants under the said superior landlord and are paying rent as such to the shebait of the said Debottar Estate 'Dr. Sushanto Chatterjee'. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has disposed of the said application holding that such relationship between the parties does exist.

(3.) Mr. Kushal Chatterjee learned advocate for the petitioners referring to the definition of 'landlord' under Sec. 2(d) of the said Act of 1956 submits that one has to be the present landlord to exercise the right to collect rent from the tenant. The plaintiffs after the expiry of the period of said lease are not the present landlords of the defendants, as such, are not entitled to collect rent from them. Mr. Chatterjee to bolster his said argument refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PUKHRAJ JAIN vs. PADMA KASHYAP AND ANOTHER reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court cases 431. He further refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Satyanarayana vs. P. Jagadish Reported in (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 424 to contend that since the defendants have attorned to the paramount title-holder, a new jural relationship of landlord and tenant has come into the existence between them, as a consequence thereof, Sec. 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is no fetter to challenge the title of the plaintiffs. He concludes that the learned Trial Judge has absolutely misdirected himself in holding that there exists relationship of landlords and tenants between the plaintiffs and the defendants.