JASODA NANDAN DUTT Vs. BIDHAN NIRMAN PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 19.01.2015 passed by the learned Trial Judge in C.S. 99 of 1997. The grievances as stated in the memo of appeal are as follows:

(2.) In the interest of effective adjudication, the factual scenario is required to be revisited. The plaintiffs'/respondents' case - in an encapsulated form - is such that one Ajoyendra Krishna Deb was the absolute owner of the building, being premises no. 76 of 2010 Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta and as such, he had executed a registered deed of lease dated 6th Aug. 1962 in favour of M/s. Dutta and Company Private Limited. The defendant No. 1, Amal Kumar Dutt, since deceased, being the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 3 to 9 and one Ajit Kumar Dutt, since deceased, being the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant No. 3, executed a deed of lease for a period of 30 years from the first day of Aug. 1962. The said lease was granted at a consideration of Rs.1800, being the monthly rent payable by the lessees to the plaintiff month by month according to the English calendar. The defendant No. 1 and the predecessors-in-interest of other defendants jointly took possession of the said premises on certain terms and conditions. It was specifically stipulated in the said lease deed that the lessees will not assign or part with possession of the demised premises, or any part thereof, without previous consent in writing of the lessor, provided nevertheless that even if the lessor shall give consent to such assignment, transfer or parting with possession of the demised premises or any part thereof, the lessees will not thereby be relieved of their liability to the lessor for the payment of rent and for the performance and observance by them of the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was also stipulated that the lessees will be on the expiration or sooner determination of the lease allow the lessor within six months thereafter to dismantle and remove all buildings and structures erected by them on the demised premises. It was also specifically mentioned in the terms of the lease that the lessees shall have an option to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years commencing from 1st Aug., 1992 on the same terms, conditions and stipulations as mentioned in the original lease deed.

(3.) Plaintiff has also averred in its plaint that during the subsistence of the said lease deed, the said Amal Kumar Dutta and Ajit Kumar Dutta died intestate leaving their respective heirs and legal representatives, who are styled as defendant No. 2 to 9. The plaintiff is very categorical in saying that the said defendants have violated the terms and conditions of the said lease deed in the following manner:- (a) That they have failed and neglected to pay the rent from the month of May 1991 in spite of repeated demand and requests being made: (b) That the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest neglected to pay the municipal rates and taxes of the occupiers share from the 4th quarter of 1990-1991 till determination of the lease: (c) That the defendants and predecessors-in-interest in gross violation of the terms and conditions of the said lease have sub-let/assigned/parted with the possession of the demised premises to various third parties without the previous consent of the plaintiff in writing or otherwise. For that reason, the plaintiff did not renew the lease for another 20 years. An option was exercised by the defendant by a letter dated 30.06.1992 addressed to the plaintiff but the latter did not consider the same to be a proper exercise of the lessee's options because they had already violated the terms of the lease deed. This apart, the defendants did not take any step for enforcement or specific performance of the said agreement for renewal of lease within the prescribed period of limitation.