EIH LIMITED Vs. BATA INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the owner of the premises. The plaintiff says that having regard to the composition of the rent the relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant is governed by the Transfer of Property Act and not by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The plaintiff on 8th February, 2012 initially had issued a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the said notice, the plaintiff stated that on and from the expiry of the notice period, the plaintiff shall claim damages and/or mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 7500/ - per diem till possession is made over to the plaintiff. Thereafter, by another notice dated 21st March, 2012, the plaintiff withdrew the earlier notice dated 8th February, 2012 and issued a fresh notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. This time it is stated in the said notice that on expiry of the notice period, the plaintiff shall claim damages and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 7/ - per sq.ft. per diem for the area occupied by the plaintiff till the possession is made over by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant is a lessee in respect of a showroom on the ground and mezzanine floors at Premises No. 15/1, Jawaharlal Neheru Road, Kolkata -700013 paying a rent of Rs. 12000/ - and maintenance charges Rs. 1200/ - per month.

(3.) MR . Jayanta Kumar Mitra, the learned Advocate General appearing with Mr. Sakya Sen, advocate on behalf of the plaintiff submits that since the notice period has expired and the defendant has failed and neglected to deliver vacant possession of the property in question, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for summary eviction under Chapter XIIIA of the High Court Original Side Rules. It is submitted that the defendant has no defence to the claim of the plaintiff.