TURNER MORRISON LTD Vs. CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This summon has been taken out by the plaintiff for recording final judgment under Rule 1(B) of Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules. In this summons the plaintiff wants final relief at this interim stage in a suit for eviction from an immovable property and for a money claim. There is no dispute under the law that this mode of action is permissible under the aforesaid provision. The Plaintiff's case in short is as follows : By and under a written agreement dated 8th January, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) the Plaintiff let out to the defendant an area of 5100 sq. ft. in the 4th floor of the premises No. 6, Lyons Range, Calcutta-700 001 for a period of seven years from the aforesaid date at a monthly rent of Rs. 51,000/-. In addition thereto the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 12,750/- per month for service charges and further sum of Rs. 12,750/- as rent for the fixture thereof aggregating to Rs. 76,500/- per month with provision for increase of the same by 15% with effect from 1 st April, 1994 and thereafter by further 15% after the expiry of every two years from 1 st April, 1994. It was further agreed that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff the proportionate share of consolidated rate water tax, surcharge levied on consolidated rate and any other imposition or levy by Kolkata Municipal Corporation or under West Bengal Multistoried Building Tax Act and the West Bengal Urban Land Taxation Act etc. Etc. In breach of the said agreement the defendant failed and neglected to pay the rent, service charges and rent for fixtures since May, 2001. In further breach of the agreement the defendant failed and neglected to pay proportionate share of consolidated rate, water tax surcharge levied on consolidated rate and other imposition of levy by the said Corporation and under West Bengal Multistoried Building Tax Act as also West Bengal Land Taxation Act in respect of said premises.

(2.) In view of the aforesaid breach the plaintiff is entitled to reenter the said premises, as such the tenancy of the said premises has been determined by forfeiture. In any event by notice dated 30th December, 2003 the tenancy has been determined and copy of the said notice has been received On expiry of the notice period of 30 days from the date of receipt and in spite of forfeiture of the tenancy the defendant failed and neglected to vacate and handover the possession of the said premises. The defendant further failed and neglected to pay arrear of rent.

(3.) It is clear from the aforesaid that in view of non-payment of rent and other outgoings the tenancy has been determined.