TARAK NATH SHA Vs. BHUTORIA BROTHERS PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There two appeals F.A. No. 87 of 1988 and F.A. No, 88 of 1988 arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 6th October, 1989 passed in Title Suit No. 812 of 1984 and Title Suit No. 240 of 1984 respectively. These two appeals are heard together. The appellant had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for additional evidence in respect of some documents being correspondences with the Postal Authorities.

(2.) The cases in the two suits are based on the same facts out of which two different reliefs are being sought for by the respective parties against each other. The narration of facts-hereafter would give us a clear picture. The appellant Tarak Nath Sha (Tarak Nath) stepped into the shoes of one Ram Kewal Sha as trustee in respect of the suit property. M/s. Bhutoria Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (BBL), the defendant in the Title Suit No. 812 of 1984 obtained a lease of the suit property for the purpose of residence of its Director, Manmal Bhutoria (Manmal), for a period of 21 years outside the purview of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (WBPT Act) expiring on 22nd March, 1984 from Ram Kewal Sha, predecessor in title of the appellant Tarak Nath, executed on 23rd March, 1963. On the expiry of the lease, Tarak Nath filed Title Suit No. 812 of 1984 for recovery of possession with mesne profits. Manmal filed Title Suit No. 240 of 1984 against Tarak Nath and BBL for declaration that Manmal is a tenant in respect of the suit premises and for injunction.

(3.) The plaint case of Manmal in Title Suit No. 240 of 1984 was that originally the lease was taken by BBL for the purpose of residence of its Director Manmal, who resigned from the post of Director of the company and severed all his connections sometimes before April 1974. BBL terminated the lease with the expiry of June 1974 by its letter dated April 18,1974 in terms of clause (lll)(iii) contained in the Deed of Lease after having paid rent till the month of June 1974. Manmal comnlenced negotiation with Tarak Nath for grant of tenancy in his personal capacity from July 1,1974 at a rate of Rs. 1,100/- per month payable according to the English calendar comprising of the suit premises together with an additional piece of adjoining vacant land. Tarak Nath in spite of assurances failed and neglected to grant tenancy to Manmal in respect of the adjoining land although was agreeable to Manmal's continuation of occupation as a monthly tenant at the rent of Rs. 1,100/- per month since paid by Manmal to Tarak Nath regularly, though, however, no rent receipt was granted by Tarak Nath. Suddenly by a letter dated 27th January, 1984, Tarak Nath demanded possession of the premises from BBL ignoring what had transpired for the last ten years. Manmal pointed out by a letter dated 9th February, 1984 to Tarak Nath that the lease was terminated with the expiry of June, 1974 and Tarak Nath was attempting to deny Manmal's right as a tenant taking advantage of his having never granted rent receipts. On these grounds Manmal had filed the Title Suit No. 240 of 1984 for declaration of his tenancy and for injunction against Tarak Nath impleading BBL as defendant No. 2. Title Suit No. 812 of 1984 was dismissed. Title Suit No. 240 of 1984 was allowed. The appellant, therefore, had preferred these two appeals against the common judgment and decree as stated before.