MINA GHOSH Vs. DAULATRAM ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, arising on a difference of opinion between my learned brothers. Banerjee and D Basu JJ.

(2.) The point of difference has not been stated by their Lordships but it is clear that, for their ultimate difference on the question whether the present Rule should or should not succeed, the material of immediate conflict between them was whether, to the instant case, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, would apply, or, more precisely, whether the opposite party No. 1 was a tenant under the petitioner so as to be entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent under the above Act and, in that connection, their Lordships primarily differed on the question whether the document Ext. A was a lease, as understood under the general law.

(3.) The material facts have been sufficiently stated by their Lordships and it is unnecessary to repeat or reiterate the same. Suffice it to say that Banerjee, J. was of the view that the above document was not a valid lease in law and was ineffective to pass any interest in the disputed premises and, upon it, the opposite party No. 1 could not claim to be a tenant and could not apply for any relief under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Basu J. differed and he was of the view that the disputed document, Ext. A. was a valid lease in law and, although it was for a term of five years in the first instance, with an option of renewal in favour of opposite party No. 1 for another five years, and so required registration as a lease, the mere fact that it was not registered as such or registered according to law, would not make it irrelevant and it would be admissible under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.