ANSUMAN MULLICK Vs. MALLIKA INVESTMENT CO P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiffs application for interim reliefs in his pending suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs case, in a few words, is this. The first, fifth and sixth defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit property (i.e. the property at 5.C.R. Avenue, Kolkata). The lease dated February 14th, 1970, whereunder it was let out to the first defendant for ten years, was not validly renewed. Since the lease expired by efflux of time, the first, fifth and sixth defendants are not entitled to collect and appropriate rent from the third and fourth defendants who have been occupying it as tenants. The property is in a bad state of repair, rates and taxes payable for it have remained unpaid for long. Hence, it is necessary that a receiver should be appointed for protecting his interests in the suit property during pendency of the suit.

(3.) Mr. Hirak Mitra, senior advocate, appears for the plaintiff. His first contention is the following one. Although the registered lease dated February 14th, 1970 contained terms and conditions for its renewal, it was not renewed according to law. It could have been renewed only by a fresh registered lease, and admittedly no fresh lease was executed and registered. The option for renewal exercised by the first defendant by its letter dated November 2nd, 1979 was not followed up by execution and registration of a fresh lease. The letter dated February 2nd, 1980 written by the second defendant to renew the lease for a further term of sixty years on same terms and conditions would not renew the lease in law. As was held in Rasiklal M. Mehta v. The Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1976 Mad 194; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Vummidi Kannan, AIR 1992 Mad 190 (DB); and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. V. Ashvinraj, AIR 1996 Mad 285, a lease in force can be renewed only by executing and registering a fresh lease, and not by any other means.