TURNER MORRISON LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING decrees for recovery of possession of the suit property and mesne profits the plaintiff instituted the suit on August 18th, 2005. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement on November 19th, 2005. By order dated February 27th, 2006 prayer for amendment of the written statement was allowed, and the amended written statement was filed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs case is this. It is the owner of premises No. 6, Lyons Range, kolkata-700001. By and under an agreement dated August 31st, 1987 it let out to the defendant a portion measuring about 10855 sq. ft. of the third floor of the premises. The monthly rent payable at the rate of Rs. 7 per sq. ft. was rs. 75,985. According to the agreement, the defendant was to increase the monthly rent by 10% every three years during the first nine years of the tenancy, and thereafter by mutual discussion on the basis of the market rate of rent existing in the locality of the suit property. Although the defendant increased rent at the rate of 10% and thus the monthly rent payable at the ninth year became Rs. 91,941. 85, in spite of repeated requests and demands it failed and neglected to increase the rent thereafter according to the terms and conditions of the agreement. By a notice dated May 19th, 2005 issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 it determined the tenancy effective on the expiry of the month of June 2005, and called upon the defendant to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property. Even after receiving the notice, the defendant did not vacate the suit property and deliver possession thereof, but continued to remain in wrongful possession and occupation thereof. The tenancy having been determined lawfully, it became entitled to recover possession of the suit property and also to claim and get mesne profits from July 1st, 2005 at the rate of rs. 18,091. 66 per diem, the amount being the reasonable letting out value of the suit property or a like property in the vicinity.

(3.) THE defendant's case is this. The suit is not maintainable, and this Court has no jurisdiction to try it. The plaintiff has no cause of action. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It has been using the suit property for office purpose. According to terms and conditions of the agreement dated august 31st, 1987 it increased the rent, and regularly paid it. The tenancy is regulated by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 that came into force with effect from July 10th, 2001. Although it was always agreeable to increase the rent to a justified, reasonable and rational extent, the adamant plaintiff moved the writ Court and obtained an order directing its chairman-cum-managing director to consider the plaintiffs representation regarding increase in the rent. Accordingly, the authority heard the plaintiff and gave a decision dated November 26th, 1999 fixing the increased rent payable per month. The plaintiff challenged the decision by filing another writ petition, and by order in that the authority's decision was set aside, and liberty was granted to the plaintiff to take steps for increase in the rent. Having failed to get the rent increased, the plaintiff became vindictive, and instituted the suit. The tenancy was never determined in accordance with law. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit.