- (1.) THIS is an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules on the Original Side of this Court being heard on remand. This application was dismissed as one not covered by the provisions found in Chapter XIIIA of the Rules, but in the appeal arising out of the petition for special leave to appeal therefrom, the Supreme court has set aside the judgment and order earlier passed on this application.
(2.) IT is necessary that the Supreme Court order of March 7, 2007 be seen in its material part: "by the impugned order the High Court has held that the summary procedure under Chapter 13a of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta high Court does not apply to the case of a licencee and would apply only to case where the relationship is that of landlord and tenant. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 states before us that the respondent Club is the tenant of the appellant and is not a licencee. He relies upon an agreement entered into between the appellant and respondent Club. Since the Respondent Club admits that it is a tenant of subrata Kumar Roy, the landlord, the orders of the High Court cannot be sustained. As we have observed earlier, the High Court itself has found that summary procedure under Chapter 13a of the Original Side Rules will apply in an action for recovery of immovable property by a landlord against a tenant whose term has expired or duly determined by notice to quit. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the high Court is set aside. The High Court shall now proceed to decide the application filed under Chapter 13a of the Original Side Rules of the calcutta High Court in accordance with law. It will be open to the appellant and the proforma respondents, who also claim to be landlords, to seek appropriate interim relief against the illegal constructions alleged to have been raised, or being raised, by the respondent. "
(3.) THE plaintiff's basis for seeking the decree for eviction in this suit is that the deed of lease of July 25, 1982 is void and cannot be relied upon by the defendants in view of Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plaintiff says that since the first defendant club is an unregistered society and the other defendants are members of an association which is not registered, the first paragraph of Section 5 of the said Act would not apply. The plaintiff contends that notwithstanding the document that appears at page 111 of the affidavit in support of the summons, the defendants have no right to retain possession of the premises.;