SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated Sept. 15, 1998 passed by a learned Judge of this Court inter alia, decreeing the suit in part.
(2.) BY a letter dated August 19, 1986, the Jute Corporation of India Limited (In short "the Corporation") was inducted by Budge Budge Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") as a tenant in respect to certain godowns, particulars of which have been mentioned in the plaint. The subject godowns are admittedly situated within the Mill premises of the Company for storage of raw jute stocks. Initially, the Corporations was inducted as a monthly tenant for a period of two years. One of the terms in the aforesaid letter was that the Company would male arrangement at their cost to ensure free movement of loaded lorries carrying on jute stock through the main gate of the Mill premises and also make arrangement for necessary repairs to the approach road connecting the Mill premises with the road outside besides the roads within the premises. A clause was also incorporated in the letter that the company shall indemnify the Corporation in full against the loss, if any which the company might be called upon to incur if the labourers of the Corporation were not allowed to work inside the Mill premises. By a letter dated November 30, 1998, the Corporation intimated the company that they had intended to release the godowns/sheds taken on rent on and from February 28, 1989. On March 21, 1989 the Corporation addressed a letter to the Company indicating that it had learnt from press report that a lock-out was declared in the mill premises and for that it was not possible for the Corporation to remove their materials stocked in their godowns and requested the company to confirm in writing, if it was possible to carry out operations during the lock-out period. In reply to the said letter, the company informed the Corporation by a letter dated March 28, 1989 that there was no lock-out but the production process of the mill was suspended with effect from March 18, 1989. However, it was suggested by the Company that the Corporation might operate from the said godowns with the help of police. By a letter dated May 19, 1989 the Marketing Manager of the Corporation informed the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas that the Corporation's deposit and withdrawal operations at the mill premises were suspended due to unrest created by the labourers of the company and, therefore, sought for intervention of the District Magistrate and help to enable the Corporation to remove its stocks lying locked in the mill premises without any resistance from the agitating labour force on or before May 31, 1989. In a letter dated July 4, 1989, the Chairman of the company, however, admitted that there was a lock out in the Mill premises but at the same time requested the Corporation to ensure that the rents payable by them should be paid to the company. Since the Corporation was not getting access to the godowns, on April 11, 1990, it requested the Officer-in-charge, Budge Budge Police Station to ensure that the law and order was maintained at the time of removing the materials from the mill premises and to see that the lorries of the Corporation were not prevented from carrying out the job. Ultimately, the Corporation by a letter dated April 19, 1990 recorded that because of the declaration of lock out the operations of the Corporation in the Mill premises came to a halt and the Corporation could not lift its stocks and could not release the godowns, earlier. The Corporation, therefore, denied its liability to pay rent with effect from March, 1989. On April 20, 1990, the representatives of the Corporation went to the Mill premises when the labourers of the Company prevented them from removing the raw jutes and that was recorded by a letter addressed to the officer-in-charge, Budge Budge Police Station. Ultimately, a suit was instituted by the Corporation in this Court and a receiver was appointed in the said suit and under the supervision of the receiver, stored jutes were removed by the Corporation from time to time. Thereafter on November 30, 1992 the physical possession of the godowns was handed over to the company and the representatives of the company accepted the possession of the godowns in good order and condition. On January 15, 1993, the instant suit, out of which the present appeal arises, was instituted by the company against the Corporation praying for a decree for Rs. 40,58,503.38 towards arrears of rent for the months from December, 1989 to November, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 85,164.33 per month with interest on the said accrued sums at the rate of 21% calculated up to January 15, 1993. In paragraph 10 of the plaint of the suit, it was admitted by the company that since the rent for the months from March to November, 1989 became barred, the company had no claim in respect of such period.
(3.) THE Corporation contested the suit by filing a written statement. In the written statement, it was inter alia, contended that the Corporation decided to release the tenanted godowns but when their representatives went to take out the raw jutes from the mill premises, they found that the gate of the mill was locked and a large number of employees of the company were squatting in front of the gate and prevented the representatives of the Corporation from entering into the mill premises and all attempts to enter into the mill premises were frustrated and, therefore, the Corporation was not obliged to pay rent on and from March, 1989 as the Corporation already had surrendered their tenancy after February, 1989 but was prevented from vacating the godowns due to suspension of production process followed by lock out of the mill of the company.;