KAMINI KAPOOR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was a lessee under a lessor. She held 1510.40 Sq. ft. on the ground floor of premises No. 9, Ezra Street, Kolkata 700 001. The defendant bank was a sub lessee under the plaintiff. There is no dispute that the plaintiff had the power to under-lease the demised property. The defendant paid rent to the plaintiff, last on 13th March, 2008, of the sum of Rs.21, 849/- per month.

(2.) Now, it so happened that the lessor sold the property to a purchaser. The defendant promptly entered into an arrangement with the purchaser and started occupying the property, supposedly under him. This new arrangement was made on or about 1st August, 2010. The justification of the defendant bank was that the head lease of the plaintiff expired on 13th November, 2002. The bank thought that they were in a good position to de-recognize the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff on 30th June, 2011 issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the defendant, asking them to vacate the property and deliver possession thereof to them, by 15th July, 2011. The defendant continues to occupy the property. A learned Counsel appeared for them. Two or three worthless points were taken. One of them was relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. When the claim of the plaintiff is based on determination of lease and trespass with effect from 16th July, 2011 and mesne profits are claimed @ Rs.2 lac per month on and from 16th July, 2011 till recovery of possession in addition to a decree for Rs.8,73,960/- for arrear rent from 1st April, 2008 till 15th July, 2011, the valuation of the suit, on the basis of it does not appear to be erroneous. Hence, this point of pecuniary jurisdiction does not have any merit. Secondly, a point was raised that the plaintiff does not have any right title and interest over the property. This will be dealt with in the discussion below.