JAJNESWAR MAJUMDAR Vs. PANCHANAN POREY
LAWS(CAL)-1963-1-9
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 08,1963

JAJNESWAR MAJUMDAR Appellant
VERSUS
PANCHANAN POREY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KAI KHUSHROO BEZONJEE CAPADIA V. B.J.H. WARDEN [REFERRED TO]
RAM HARI SINGH V. TIRTHA PADA MISRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.K.Sen, J. - (1.)This Revisional application is by the landlord and is directed against the orders of the Courts below, dismissing the petitioner's prayer for ejectment of the opposite parties who are thika tenants under him. The opposite parties executed a registered lease (Ext. 1) on 31.7.51 providing for a Thika tenancy for a term of three years at the monthly rent of Rs.9/- for 5 cottahs and odd land described in the lease deed. The tenancy expired on the last day of Asar 1361 B.S. corresponding to the middle of July 1954. The petitioner landlord Jajneswar Majumdar filed an application for ejectment on 20.2.57 claiming that he was entitled to ejectment under Section 39vi) of the Thika Tenancy Act, which provides that when the thika tenant holds the land comprised in the holding under a registered lease, he shall be liable to ejectment on the ground that the term of the lease has expired.
(2.)The tenant opposite parties contested the application contending that they were already thika tenants living on the land from long before the execution of the registered lease, Ext. 1, and that after the passing of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 they were compelled to execute the registered lease under coercion and undue influence by the landlord petitioner, Jajneswar Majumdar, and that, therefore, the registered lease deed was not binding on them. It was further urged that the provisions of the lease deed being contrary to the provisions of the Thika Tenancy Act, the lease was void under Section 31 of the Thika Tenancy Act.
(3.)The learned Munsif acting as the Controller under the Thika Tenancy Act, accepted the defence that the lease deed had been executed as a result of coercion and undue influence on the part of the landlord and so held that the lease was void. That being so, the learned Munsif as the Controller dismissed the application for ejectment. There was an al which was heard by Shri T.P. Mukherjee, Subordinate Judge, Alipore. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the lease contravened the terms of the Thika Tenancy Act regarding payment of compensation to the thika tenant and was to that extent void, and that the lease was also void to the extent that it saddled the tenant with a liability for ejectment on the ground contained in Section 3(vi) of the Thika Tenancy Act, in other words, the learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the finding of the Controller that the registered lease deed was void. The learned Subordinate Judge also found an additional point in favour of the Thika tenants, namely, that there had been creation of a new tenancy by holding over, because the landlord had allowed the tenants to remain in possession of the demised land for two years and 7 months after the expiry of the lease and before the institution of the suit. Accordingly the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.