UNION OF INDIA Vs. KUSUM COMMERCIAL CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main challenge to the decree of eviction passed on 10/7/2013 against the appellant by the Learned Judge of City Civil Court, 3rd Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 3841 of 2010 is that the appellant was a tenant under the respondent, and further, not the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, will have application in the case. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty, has strenuously argued that the original deed of lease was not marked as exhibit nor any notice was issued upon the competent authority for production of the same during the trial. The learned counsel has also submitted that there are documents in the proceedings wherefrom it would appear that the appellant was all along willing to renew the lease but due to sheer non-cooperation from the side of the respondent, the same could not be done.

(2.) As the original deed of lease was not produced by the respondent admission of certified copy in evidence was challenged by the appellant as improper and inappropriate. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported at (2010) 8 SCC 423 (Shalimar Chemical Works Limited Vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and Ors.), AIR 2000 Supreme Court 426 (Ishwar Dass Jain, (dead) through LRs. Vs. Sohan Lal, (dead) by LRs) and (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 404 (Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (dead) by LRs. Vs. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (dead) and Others).

(3.) Moreover, in support of his plea that acceptance of rent by the landlord even after expiry of the lease is the proof of landlord's assent to lawful possession of the tenant, Mr. Chakraborty, has cited the decision reported at AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2796 (Bhuneshwar Prasad and Another Vs. United Commercial Bank and Others).