ANINDITA CHOWDHURY Vs. GOURI SHANKAR PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of khas possession along with mesne-profit. The sum and substance of the plaint case is that one Ajit Kumar Ganguly, the father and predecessor-in-interest of the original Plaintiffs was the sole owner of the piece and parcel of land measuring about 7 cottah 6 chittacks 20 sq. ft. situated at 124A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata. This is the suit property. The said suit property along with structures standing thereon was subject matter of a lease dtd. 17/5/1946. By a registered deed of lease, as aforesaid, dtd. 17/5/1946, the said Ajit Kumar Ganguly demised the suit property to the original Defendant for a period of thirty years at a monthly rent of Rs.475.00. The intention of the lessor was that the suit property would be utilized for motion picture theatre purpose and building may be constructed thereon for such purpose would form part of the land and should belong to the lessor. During subsistence of the said lease, the parties executed another registered deed of lease dtd. 12/11/1946 under which it was agreed upon that the original Defendant, being the lessee therein, would have option of renewal of the lease of the suit property till 14/4/1993 on payment of monthly rent of Rs.1475.00. Thus the second lease deed dtd. 12/11/1946 introduced option for renewal of lease. The original Defendant regularly paid rent.

(2.) The original lease expired on 17/5/1976. Thereafter, the original lessee exercised his option of renewal of lease by an agreement in respect of the land and pucca building standing thereon. The renewed period of the lease expired on 14/4/1993 and rent was accepted by the lessor last for the month of March 1993. The original lessor expired on 6/8/1981 and his legal heirs and successors stepped into his shoes. After expiry of lease the original Defendant did not vacate the suit land leading the Plaintiff to institute the instant suit praying for recovery of possession of the suit premises: decree for Rs.1,34,16,000.00 for wrongful occupation of the suit property till 24/6/2002 alternatively enquiry into mesne- profit along with other prayers.

(3.) The original Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein, apart from standard defenses, the original Defendant took plea that the later took a registered lease for thirty years from 17/5/1946 with option of renewal for ten years. The lease was in respect of vacant land measuring about 7 cottah 6 chittacks 29 sq. ft. at premises no. 124/1, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. During subsistence of this lease the lessor modified the original lease deed altering the period of lease from thirty years to forty years commencing from 17/5/1946 to 14/11/1986. There was an option to renewal of lease for another 7 years till 14/4/1993. The original Defendant executed another registered deed of lease on 29/4/1958 in respect of vacant land measuring about 2 cottah 9 chittacks, previously known as 1A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, with one Anadi Kumar Bose. This land was subsequently numbered as 23/2A, Dickson Lane, being a portion of the premises no. 124, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. This lease was executed by the original Defendant for construction of a cinema building. Both the leasehold lands were amalgamated resulting in an aggregated land of 9 cottah 15 chittacks 29 sq. ft. as premises no. 124/A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. The name of the original Defendant was mutated in the records of the then Calcutta Municipal Corporation and assessment order was passed showing amalgamation of the two premises. Prior to 1961-1962, kutcha structure was built by the original Defendant at the premises no. 124/A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. In the year 1961, the said two premises were amalgamated, and numbered as 124/A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road. On permission of the then Calcutta Municipal Corporation, the original Defendant constructed a motion picture cinema hall, being pucca structure, known as "Prachi" cinema hall. The original Defendant was the owner of the structure. In conspectus of this factual background, the original Defendant's first plea is that there is no separate existence of any land measuring about 7 cottah 6 chittacks 9 sq. ft., the suit property herein, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed as the suit property is wrongly described.