KALYAN KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. NAMITA GUHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sukumar Chatterjee was a monthly tenant in respect of premises no. 6, Raja bagan Street, Calcutta. During the subsistence of the said tenancy the then owner of the property sold the premises to one Shri Kiron Chandra Mitra, since deceased. The said Shri Kiron Chandra Mitra filed an Ejectment suit in 1961 being suit no. 1040 of 1961 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the said Sukumar Chatterjee. The city Civil Court passed a decree for eviction as against Sukumar Chatterjee on or about June 29, 1965. Sukumar preferred an appeal in this court being F. A. No. 236 of 1966 and obtained an order of stay for execution of the decree on April 5, 1966. During the pendency of the appeal Chatterjees claimed to have entered into a negotiation with Kiran to the effect that Kiron would sell the property to Chatterjees at and for a sum between Rs. 1. 1 lacs to Rs. 1. 4 lacs and a formal agreement for sale would be entered into to the said effect. Chatterjees paid a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 as and by way of part consideration. A formal agreement was also entered into by and between the parties as appearing at pages 29-35 of the Paper Book. The parties appointed their respective advocates to conclude the transaction. According to the vendors, the purchasers failed and neglected to conclude the transaction despite willingness being expressed by the vendors. The purchasers contended that the vendors could not prove a marketable title. They also could not produce necessary estate Duty clearance certificate in respect of the estate of Kiran Chandra Mitra since deceased. It is pertinent to mention during the pendency of the Ejectment appeal and after execution of the said agreement Kiran died on May 26, 1967 leaving him surviving his heirs and legal representatives being the respondents abovenamed.

(2.) SINCE the transaction could not be completed the vendors terminated the agreement through their advocate which gave rise to a suit for specific performance instituted by chatterjees, the purchasers therein being Civil Suit No. 680 of 1968.

(3.) IN the said suit the purchasers also pleaded a tenancy agreement to the effect that during the subsistence of the agreement for sale the parties verbally agreed that so long the transaction could not be completed the purchasers would continue to pay monthly rent of Rs. 300. 00. When the suit went for trial the purchasers-plaintiffs gave up the case of tenancy.