SHREE SHREE ISWAR SATYANARAYANJI Vs. SARAD KUMAR BURMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs Satya Narayan Bagla had granted a lease of 30 years w.e.f 1/4/1966 in favour of predecessorin-interest of the defendants by three indentures at a fixed rent per month. Said registered lease deeds embodied renewal clause for a further period of 21 years. Plaintiffs further case is since no request for renewal of the said lease deeds were received from the defendant, they served notice to quit upon the defendants to vacate the suit premises upon expiry of lease deeds. The defendant since failed to vacate the suit premises inspite of receipt of notice to quit upon expiry of the said lease deeds with efflux of time on 31/3/1996, the plaintiff filed T.S. No. 152 of 2000 for recovery of khas possession and mesne profit, which is now pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Howrah.

(2.) The defendant filed written statement in the suit, wherein they have admitted about the execution of lease deeds but the defendants by filing a counter claim prayed for a declaration that the plaintiffs or lessors are legally bound to renew the lease dtd. 29/4/1967 in favour of the defendants/ lessee for another term of 21 years.

(3.) During pendency of the aforesaid suit the plaintiffs preferred an application under order XII rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the only defence raised by the defendants in their written statement is with regard to their entitlement to be granted a renewal of lease deed for a further period of 21 years upon expiry of the original tenure i.e. march 1996. Based on the contentions urged in the written statement, it would appear that the defendants have unequivocally admitted that even if the declaration sough for in the counter claim is allowed, admittedly their right to occupy the suit property under the renewal clause, would at the most, extended to the further term of 21 years from the date of expiry of the original tenure and they would cease to have any right to stay in the suit property after March, 2017 and as such plaintiff have prayed for part decree on such admission with regard to the prayer for recovery of possession only, made in terms of prayer 16(a) of the plaint. Learned court below after considering the submissions made by the parties has been pleased to reject plaintiffs aforesaid prayer for passing part decree by the order impugned.