RABINDRA NATH DUTTA Vs. IRA DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff-landlord in a suit for eviction on the ground of expiry of lease of 20 years and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th May, 2004 passed by the learned Judge, 9th bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 461 of 1993 thereby dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE aforesaid suit was filed for eviction on the ground that by virtue of a registered deed of lease for 20 years commencing from September 1, 1972 and expiring with August 31, 1992, an option was given to the defendant to renew the lease for further term on certain conditions, but on the expiry of that period, although the defendant expressed his desire for renewal, the plaintiff agreed to execute a fresh lease-deed on condition that the rent should be on the basis of prevailing market rate. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not agree to such proposal and consequently, no fresh deed of lease was executed. The plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to get recovery of possession on the expiry of the lease of 20 years. On the death of the defendant, his heirs and legal representatives, sixteen in number, were substituted and they filed three sets of written statement.

(3.) THE substituted defendant nos. 1 to 8 claimed that the original defendant wanted to purchase the premises at a price of Rs. 50,000/- and there was an agreement for sale in between the plaintiff and the original defendant and the latter duly paid such amount but the plaintiff no. 1 did not execute the sale-deed and as such, a charge was created over the premises as the plaintiff no. 1 sold the suit premises to the plaintiff no. 2 without making refund of the consideration money taken from the original defendant. Although, the defendants made a counterclaim of specific performance, yet, did not either value the counterclaim nor did they pay the court fees on such counterclaim.