JIBANDHAN DEY Vs. UNITED EXIBITORS
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Referred Judgements :-
KUMAR RAJ KRISHNA PROSADLAL SINGH DEO V. BARABANI COAL CONCERN LTD. AND ORS.
LODAI MOLLAH V. KALLY DASS ROY
K A DHAIRYAWAN VS. J R THAKUR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.
(2.)The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 3 cottahs 6 chattaks situate within the Municipality of Baranagar and numbered as premises No.290, Gopal Lal Tagore Road, Baranagore. There were some structures on the land. By an agreement dated October 16, 1945, executed by and between the plaintiff and one Nil Krishna Talukdar, a partner of the defendant firm the plaintiff agreed to lease the said premises to the said Nil Krishna Talukdar or his nominee on certain terms and conditions. It was agreed that the plaintiff would evict the existing tenants from the premises and make over possession of the same to the lessee. The lessee would demolish the existing structures and construct on the land a Cinema House with attached buildings necessary for carrying on the exhibition of cinema shows. On account of the existing structures on the land, the lessee was to pay to the lessor a sum of Rs.4,000. The lessee would also keep in deposit with the lessor, at the time of the execution of the lease, a further sum of Rs. 4,000 which would be refunded by the lessor to the lessee after the execution of the lease and after the building and structures are erected by the lessee on the land. The property stood in benami of the lessor's wife and it was stipulated by the lessor that the lessor would take steps to get a decree from a competent Court declaring the title of the lessor in the property and that within fifteen days of the date of the decree the lessor would execute the lease in favour of the lessee. The period of the lease was for thirty five years with an option of renewal to the lessee for a further period of ten years. The rent reserved was Rs.350 per months for the first period of the lease, namely, for the first thirty five years and thereafter for the next ten years at the rate of Rs. 400 per month. It was stipulated that, if the rent was not paid for more than six months, the lease would be treated as cancelled and the lessor would be entitled to possess the lease-hold property without notice. Clause (5) of thelease provides that the lessor will get back the cinema buildings on the lease-hold property which will be built by the lessee together with all fixtures and appurtenances save and except the machineries and movables after the period of the lease free from all incumbrances, and that the lessee will not get any compensation nor will he be entitled to claim any price therefor.
(3.)The existing tenants were evicted by the lessor and the lessor also obtained a compromise decree whereby the lessor's title was declared. The existing structures were demolished by the lessee and the lease was executed by the lessor in favour of the defendant firm, who is the nominee of the said Nil Krishna Talukdar, on May 30, 1947, and registered on the same day. The lease contains substantially the same terms as in the agreement excepting that there were some modifications. As the buildings which the lessee was required to erect almost complete on the date of the lease, the lessee was not required to deposit the sum of Rs. 4,000 in terms of the agreement. The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of both the land and the buildings and structures including the Cinema House erected by the defendant at his own cost.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.