RAM PROTAP KAYAN Vs. NATIONAL PETROLEUM CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was commenced by the respondent, the National Petroleum Co. Ltd. against the appellant Ram Protap Kayan for ejectment of the latter from a corrugated sheet shed and godown forming part of premises No. P-2 Paharpur Siding Road of the Port Commissioners of Calcutta in King George's Dock. There was also a claim for damages for wrongful occupation which was provisionally laid at Rs. 9400, The respondent's case was that its predecessor-in interest the National Petroleum Company (hereinafter referred to as the company) entered into business relationship with the appellant, the terms whereof were set out in an instrument of agreement executed by both the parties on 31st March 1981, that one of the terms of the said agreement was that the company would provide for the appellant a suitable shed and godown at a monthly rent of Rs. 60 in which the appellant would fit up his tin manufacturing machines and of which he would remain in occupation for a period of five years and would return vacant possession at the end of it, that in pursuance of the agreement the company let out the shed and godown in suit to the appellant from 1st April 1934, that the period of five years expired on the expiry of the 1st April 1939 and that as the appellant then refused to vacate the premises, he was in wrongful occupation as a trespasser since then.

(2.) In his written statement the appellant admitted the letting to him from 1st April 1934. The defence taken by him that is now material was that the agreement, which was unregistered, did not and could not create a lease for a term of five years, and that as the letting to him was for manufacturing purposes, he had in law a tenancy from year to year terminable by six months' notice to quit ending with the year of the tenancy. As no such notice had been served, he continued to be a tenant and could not be regarded as a trespasser.

(3.) While the suit was pending in the Court below the premises were requisitioned and taken over by the Government in October 1942. The prayer for ejectment, therefore, became unnecessary, but the prayer for damages remained and called for determination of the principal question which emerged for consideration in the case, viz., whether the appellant was bound to vacate the premises at the end of the term of five years under the agreement of 31st March 1934 or whether he was, in the circumstances of the case, a tenant from year to year whose tenancy was only determinable by six months' notice to quit ending with, the year of the tenancy.