PRAKASHWATI CHOPRA Vs. SIBAJI MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a registered lease dated 5th January, 1973 the Premises No.24/1 and 25 Gangadhar Babu Lane, Bowbazar, Kolkata - 700 012 was demised to the defendant by the plaintiff for a term of 21 years commencing from 1st January, 1973 and ending on 31st December, 1994 at a monthly rental of Rs. 850/- payable in advance on the 7th day of every month.

(2.) The lessee deposited a sum of Rs. 10,200/- as and by way of advance for which the lessor agreed to grant rebate of Rs.75 per month on account of rent and further agreed to adjust the said sum of Rs.10,200/- against rent payable for the year commencing from 1st January, 1994. Clause 13 of the lease provides as follows : - "At the expiration of the term of this lease or sooner determination thereof the lessee shall quit and vacate and give peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises to the lessor."

(3.) The lease came to an end on 31st December, 1994. Suit for recovery of possession together with mesne profits at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per day after expiry of the lease was filed on or about 9th October, 2002 on the sole ground that the lease had expired by efflux of time. The plaintiff claimed a decree for vacant and peaceful possession and also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,21,90,000/- as and by way of mesne profits and future mesne profits together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In the aforesaid suit an application for summary judgment under Chapter-XIIIA was filed which was allowed, by the learned trial Court by a judgment and order dated 17th February, 2006 in so far as the prayer for recovery of possession was concerned. However, the prayer for a decree on account of mesne profits has been relegated to trial. The contention, of the defendant, that the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) applied to the lease was negative by the learned trial Court on the basis that under Section 3 of the Act a registered lease executed before and after the act came into operation was specifically excluded. The trial Court further held that the defendant after expiry of the lease was in wrongful occupation of the premises and was a trespasser having no protection whatsoever in law.