R.S. IRON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD Vs. CALCUTTA PINKJRAPOLE SOCIETY
LAWS(CAL)-2012-10-80
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 17,2012

R.S. IRON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD Appellant
VERSUS
CALCUTTA PINKJRAPOLE SOCIETY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Assailing the judgment and order dated June 30, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 78 of 2005, affirming the judgment and decree dated May 21, 2005 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 101 of 2004, the defendant/appellant has filed the instant appeal.
(2.) This appeal was posted under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code under Chapter V Rule 17 Of Appellate Side Rules of High Court at Calcutta.
(3.) Admittedly, the defendant/appellant was inducted in respect of a suit premises on the basis of the registered deed of lease dated January 9, 1958 commencing from first day of January, 1958 for a period of 21 years at lease rent of Rs. 675/- per month according to English calendar. The said lease contained a clause for renewal for a period of 5 years on the terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon provided a request is made by the lessee for such renewal. It is an admitted position that the lessee did not exercise the option of renewal. The tenure of the lease as stipulated in the lease deed expired on December 31, 1978. Admittedly, the rent for the months of January to September 1979 was paid by the defendant/appellant. The plaintiff/respondent subsequently filed a suit for recovery of possession on the ground of expiration of the period reserved in the said lease dated January 19, 1958 by afflux of time which was registered as Title Suit No. 12 of 1982 in the Court of 2nd Sub Judge, Howrah. The said suit was subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 101 of 2004. The bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint reveals that the plaintiff/respondent founded its claim on the basis of the expiration of the lease by afflux of time with the categorical statement that the rent for the period from January to October 1979 was accepted in ignorance and the plaintiff/respondent never assented for continuance in possession of the defendant/appellant. There was further prayer for a decree for mesne profit for wrongful and illegal possession/occupation of the defendant/appellant.;


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