CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD Vs. EIC HOLDING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT all material times Calcutta Dock Labour board (hereinafter referred to as "cdlb") was a tenant in respect of premises no. 20b, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta (formerly known as British Indian street ). From time to time six tenancies were created being flat Nos. 1d, 1g and 1i in the first floor, 2a in the 2nd floor, 3a in the 3rd floor and 5a on the 5th floor. Altogether the CDLB was enjoying 25154. 36 sq. ft. area of the premises in question. They were paying rent @ Rs. 1. 23 per sq. ft. inclusive of service charges. The landlord being the respondent abovenamed enhanced the rent to Rs. 8. 52 per sq. ft. and started raising demand therefor. CDLB refused to pay at the enhanced rate. Disputes arose between the parties. The landlord approached the Rent Controller for fixing fair rent. In the meantime the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act of 1997") came into force. Under the said Act of 1997 the tenancy attracting monthly rent of Rs. 10,000. 00 and above was kept out of the purview of the tenancy law. In respect of the entire premises the rent was much above Rs. 10,000. 00. The respondent/landlord issued a notice through their Advocate dated April 28, 2006 appearing at page 35-36 of the paper Book determining the tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 and asked the CDLB to quit, vacate and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question at the end of the month of May, 2006. CDLB replied to the said notice vide letter dated May 19, 2006 appearing at pages 39-40 of the Paper Book and refused to vacate the premises in question. They contended that the notice was bad and invalid. The respondent filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 166 of 2006 on July 12,2006, inter alia, praying for decree for recovery of possession as also for arrear of rent and mesne profit. Soon after the service of writ of summons cdlb entered appearance. Landlord filed an application for summary judgment under Chapter XIIIA of the High Court Rules, Original Side. CDLB filed affidavit-in-opposition and contested the said application. The learned single Judge, however, negated their objection and passed a partial decree for eviction in respect of flats1d,1i in the first floor, 2a in the second floor and 5a in the fifth floor. His Lordship, however did not pass any decree in respect of the other two flats being flat Nos. 1g and 3d of the said premises in question. Hence, this appeal by the CDLB.

(2.) AT the admission stage we directed CDLB to pay a sum of Rs. 2. 00 lacs per month as and by way of occupation charges for the flats in question. We are told that CDLB is regularly paying the said sum to the respondent/ landlord. The appeal was heard by us on the above mentioned dates.

(3.) MR. S. K. Kapoor, learned Senior Counsel appearing for CDLB contended as follows :