GAUTAM MAJUMDAR Vs. MITHUA DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(CAL)-1996-1-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 04,1996

GAUTAM MAJUMDAR Appellant
VERSUS
MITHUA DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LTD. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KALPANA SARKAR VS. RAMKRISHNA MISSION [LAWS(CAL)-2003-6-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

BABOO LALL JAIN - (1.)These are two suits. The first suit is Suit No. 10 of 1988 which has been instituted by Gautam Majumdar and Subhas Chandra Majumdar against ( 1 ) Mithua Developments Pvt. Ltd. and (2) Maghan Aboth and Yasheebath Jacob Benjamin Elias, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Society'). The said suit was filed on 11th January, 1988, inter alia, for the following reliefs:
"(a) A decree for Rs. 2,86,546/ - for damages against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as pleaded in paragraphs 20, 21 and 23 hereof; (b) An injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, their respective agents and / or representatives from interfering with and/ or interrupting the lawful use, occupation and possession of the plaintiffs in the said premises No. 25, Black Burn Lane, Calcutta, the property in suit, in any manner whatsoever and/or from dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom;(c) An injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them, their respective agents and/ or representatives from dealing with, alienating or disposing of the said premises in suit."

(2.)The case made out in the said Suit No. 10 of 1988 is, inter alia, to the effect that since January, 1981 the plaintiffs have been and are still carrying on a business under the name and style of "Gautam Majumdar and Associates" and running a factory at No. 25, Blackburn Lane, Calcutta-9. The plaintiff No. 1 is the sole proprietor of the said firm i.e. Gautam Majumdar and Associates and the plaintiff No. 2, the father of the plaintiff No. 1 looks after the said business and has the management and control of the business of the said firm as Constituted Attorney. The said firm has also a godown in its place of business. According to the plaintiff they obtained a tenancy of the said premises in January, 1981 from Mrs. Rosalind Jacob and Miss Lily Tewena who according to the plaintiffs were the occupiers thereof as heirs and successors-in-interest of J. Tewena and M. Tewena, the lawful occupiers of the said premises No. 25, Blackburn Lane, Calcutta since prior to 1938. The further case of the plaintiffs in the said first suit is that Rosalind Jacob and Lily Tewena became the owners of and derived title to the said premises and became owners thereof by adverse possession as a result of the termination of the suit in their favour being suit No. 4359 of 1940 (Eharanessa Bibi v. J. Tewena and M. Tewena) in the Court of the Small Causes, Calcutta. According to the plaintiffs in the said suit the plaintiffs obtained the said tenancy in January, 1981 mainly to repair the 2 building and make it suitable for their business and factory.
(3.)Thereafter according to the aforesaid plaintiffs on January 27, 1983 the said Mrs. Rosalind Jacob and Miss Lily Tewena by a writing and / or agreement for lease, demised the said premises and/or expressed their intention to create a lease for 99 years of the said premises in favour of the plaintiffs' said firm. It is also alleged that simultaneously with the said lease and / or agreement the said Rosalind Jacob and Lily Tewena delivered actual physical possession of the said premises to the plaintiffs and / or the said firm. The terms and conditions of the said tenancy and / or lease as alleged to be recorded in the said documents were, inter alia, to the effect that the period of lease would be for 99 years; the entire premises No. 25, Blackburn Lane, Calcutta would be demised; the rent would be Rs. 200/- per month; the said demised premises would be used by the lessee for their workshop (factory); the lessee would repair the said premises and make all additions and alterations of the old and new portions thereon; actual physical possession of the premises was delivered to the lessee. In support of the said contentions the plaintiffs rely on Annexure-G to the plaint which has also been exhibited in this suit.
;


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