- (1.) Karam Chand Thapar and Bros.Ltd. moved this application for an order allowing the amendment of the plaint and also for addition of parties. Mahabir Prosad Lohia filed this suit against the petitioner claiming recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises at No. 13, India Exchange Place, Calcutta decree for mesne profits, interest and costs.
(2.) By an indenture of lease dated 1st of Dec, 1960 a lease was granted in favour of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros.Ltd. The period fixed under the said lease had expired as a result it had come to an end by efflux of time. Thereafter the petitioner made an application on 5th of Oct., 1983 for leave to deposit the arrears of rent in instalments. Since this application it was the case of the petitioner that he had come to know from One Tulsi Charan Deb, the material facts regarding the suit premises No. 13, India Exchange Place, Calcutta. The said premises originally belonged to one Rai Bhupati Nath Deb Bahadur, the son of late Anant Nath Deb. The said Rai Bhupati Nath Deb died after publishing his registered will dated 20th of Dec., 1957. Under the said will the testator bequeathed all his properties including premises No. 13, India Exchange Place, to his son Tulsi Charan Deb and his daughter Madhuri Bala Badalia in equal shares and appointed those two persons as the executor and executrix under the Will. The said Will had been duly probated by this Court. Under the circumstances the petitioner contended that the said Tulsi Charan Deb and Madhuri Bala Badalia were and still are the joint owners of premises No. 13, India Exchange Place to the exclusion of all others. The petitioner's father Madan Lal Lohia took a lease of the said premises for a period of 31 years with effect from 1st Mar. 1960 from Kamal Kumar Deb and eight other persons none of whom had any right, title and interest in any part or portion of the said premises inasmusch as the said premises belonged to Tulsi Charan Deb and Madhuri Bala Badalia. Under the circumstances no valid lease could be granted in favour of Madan Lal Lohia, and he had no right to create any further demise with regard thereto. Under the circumstances the lease granted by Madan Lal Lohia according to the petitioner, was void, inoperative and not binding on the defendant. Since the petitioner has come to know this fact subsequent to the filing of the suit, hence this application has been taken out.
(3.) The petitioner challenged the vires of S.3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act inasmuch as according to the petitioner such provision is arbitrary in cases of leases which are for a period of 20 years and of cases which are for period of less than 20 years. The petitioner contended that there is no lawful justiciable or reasonable basis for such discrimination and it offends Arts.14 and 31 of the Constitution. Further the defendant contended that after the expiry of the demise in its favour the petitioner is entitled to continue under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The petitioner contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the parties. Under the circumstances the petitioner prayed that Kamal Kumar Deb and eight other persons who created the tenancies on 5th Mar. 1960 as also Tulsi Charan Deb and Madhuri Bala Badalia be made party defendants to the suit. Inasmuch as the vires of a statute had been challenged under the circumstances the petitioner prayed for addition of the State of West Bengal as party defendant. The petitioner contended that these amendments as also the addition of the parties were necessary for the purpose of determination of the real question of controversy in suit between the parties.;