- (1.) The Plaintiff filed this suit against the State of West Bengal and Prahlad Chandra De for a declaration that the lease dated December 8, 1961, is determined, delivery of vacant possession of premises No. 257B, Bepin Behari Ganguli Street, Calcutta and in the alternative, cancellation of the order dated April 8, 1963, passed by the Government of West Bengal. Further reliefs asked for are decree for Rs. 15,618 or any other sum that may be found due from the Defendant No. 1 as rent or compensation for the period from July 14, 1962 to April 8, 1963 and for a sum of Rs. 9,240 from the Defendant No. 1 as mesne profits and damages from April 9, 1963, till September 9, 1963. The Plaintiff also claims mesne profits and or damages at the rate of Rs. 60 per diem, from the Defendant No. 1 until delivery of vacant possession of the property. In the alternative, rent or compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,767 per month is claimed from the Defendant No. 1 until delivery of vacant possession.
(2.) The Plaintiff is and at all material times has been, the owner of premises No. 257B, Bepin Behari Ganguli Street, (formerly known as 257B, Bow Bazar Street) Calcutta. On or about December 8, 1961, the Plaintiff leased the second floor of the said building to the Defendant No. 2, Prahlad Chandra De, under a registered lease for a term of 21 years. The lease, inter alia, provided: In the event of the demised premises or any part thereof being acquired or requisitioned by the Government or any Local Authority under any Act for the time being in force then this demise shall determine from the date when possession of the demised premises shall be taken by the Acquiring or Requisitioning Authority or any earlier date if so required by them and the lessee shall have no claim against the lessor, for disturbance nor shall be entitled to claim any portion of the compensation money in respect of such Acquisition or Requisition and whole of the compensation money shall belong to the lessor save and except that may be awarded to the lessee for costs of removal only.
(3.) The Defendant No. 2, Prahlad Chandra De, paid rents but defaulted in payment of municipal taxes and it is alleged that the Defendant was not in physical possession of the said premises.;