JAI CHAND MAHTAB Vs. SUCHANDANA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was filed on 12/6/2006 for recovery of peaceful and vacant possession of the premises No. 16, India Exchange Place and premises No. 8, Lyons Range, Kolkata - 700001.

(2.) The sum and substance of the facts necessary for adjudication of the present application is that the predecessors-in-interest of the present Plaintiffs executed a registered deed of lease on 7/8/1936 in respect of the suit premises for a period of 50 years with M/s. Mitters Ltd., a registered company under the then existing rule. Rent was also fixed. The present answering Defendants are successors-in-interest of the original lessee. The lease expired by efflux of time on 7/8/1986. Prior to the expiry of lease, rent was attached by the Tax Recovery Officer - XXI, Kolkata and 24 Parganas, in terms of an order dtd. 18/7/1977. Since then, rent had been paid to the taxation authorities in terms of the said order. The order of attachment was withdrawn on 25/2/1997. After expiry of the period of lease the Plaintiffs filed a suit being C.S No. 344 of 1998 in this Court. In the said suit prayer was for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises along with prayer of mesne profit. It was in the pleading of the Plaintiffs in the said suit that on expiry of lease the Defendants became trespassers bereft of any right to possession thereof in view of the fact that the Defendants and each of them failed and neglected to exercise the option of renewal of the said lease. It is further in the pleading that since not interested, the Plaintiffs were advised not to proceed with the said suit. Thereafter the suit stood dismissed.

(3.) It is in the pleading of the instant application that there is no renewal of lease by execution of a fresh deed of lease. In absence of the execution of fresh deed of lease the Defendants could at best be said to have been continuing in possession of the premises as tenants-by-holding over after expiry of terms of the principal lease. In the circumstances, by letter dtd. 13/5/2004 the Plaintiffs duly determined the tenancy of the Defendants on 15 days' notice prior expiring with the month of tenancy. The said notice was issued on behalf of the Plaintiffs under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. According to the plaintiffs on termination of the tenancy in terms of the notice dtd. 13/5/2004 the Defendants have become trespassers and the Defendants as well as any persons claiming under them are liable to be evicted as trespassers.