SAKTI RANJAN CHATTERJEE Vs. HINDUSTHAN STEEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Hindusthan Steel Limited, (for short, "hindusthan" hereafter)', carrying on business at Durgapur, is the owner of a cinema house known as chitralaya with the fittings, fixtures, plant and machinery, situate at Sarat chandra Avenue, D u r g a p u r steel Township. Pursuant to an agreement between "hindusthan", on one hand, and Sakti Ranjan Chatterjee, oh the other, - an agreement in the wake of usual invitation of tender and acceptance thereof - on or about January 27, 1965, Sakti Ranjan was put in possession of Chitralaya. On or about october 6, 1965, a formal document was executed by the parties recording the said agreement, by virtue of which sakti Ranjan was, amongst other things, to "use the cinema" for three years ending with January 26, 1968, though the term is so, Sakti Ranjan's right to remain in possession of Chitralaya, even on the expiry of January 26, 1968, and on the same terms and conditions as from January 27, 1965, was there, reinforced by the provisions of the Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, affording him protection from eviction. "hindusthan", however, was of different opinion, treating Saktiranjan as a mere licensee, bound to vacate Chitralaya on the expiry of the three-year term on january 26, 1968. Indeed, fresh tenders were invited to that end, so that other persons might be put in possession of the aforesaid cinema house. ' that led Sakti Ranjan to institute the suit he did on September 27, 1967, in the second court of the munsif at Asansol for, amongst others :

(2.) IN a suit as this, the plaintiff sakti Ranjan prayed on September 29, 1967, for a temporary injunction, restraining "hindusthan" (who had invited fresh tenders from the public on september 8, 1967, to let out the cinema house afresh after January 26, 1968)from interfering with his possession. By an order dated December 23, 1967, the learned munsiff rejected the prayer, holding, inter alia, expressly or by implication :

(3.) NO question of a tenancy under the Premises Tenancy Act can arise, as the Act does not apply to Durgapur steel Township, not a municipality yet: just what has been held by Chatterjee, j. in (1) Harinarayan Mukherjee and others v. Suresh Chandra, Gupta, Civil rule No. 4342 of 1966, decided on May 25, 1967, not yet come into the reports.