Arindam Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 15th July, 2016 passed in an application under chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court(hereinafter referred to as the said rules). The suit was filed by the respondent above named seeking, inter alia, a decree for recovery of vacant, peaceful possession of an office space being flat No. 13 at the first floor and premises No. 8 Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani, (formerly known as Harrington Street) Kolkata-700071 measuring about 4068 square feet with one servant's quarter and a covered garage at the ground floor respectively measuring about 76 square feet and 130 square feet (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') by evicting the appellant/defendant therefrom.
(2.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the undisputed fact of the case are as follows:- i) The suit property was initially owned by one Jaishree Bajoria. The said Jaishree Bajoria had let out the suit property to the appellant/defendant by a tenancy agreement dated 22nd January, 2009, for a monthly rent of Rs. 18,000/-. ii) By a registered deed of conveyance dated 15th May, 2012 the respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property for valuable consideration from the said Jaishree Bajoria. iii)By a letter dated 16th May, 2012 the said Jaishree Bajoria informed the appellant/defendant about the transfer of the suit property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and requested the appellant/defendant to attorn the tenancy of the said appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and further to pay all future rents to the plaintiff/respondent. iv)The appellant/defendant did not attorn its tenancy and also did not tender the rent either to Jaishree Bajoria or to the respondent/plaintiff. v) By a letter dated 28th August, 2012, the respondent/plaintiff informed the appellant/defendant about the purchase of the suit property and also asserted his claim as the landlord. Despite such notice, the appellant/defendant neither accepted the respondent/plaintiff as its landlord nor tendered or pay any rent to the respondent/plaintiff. vi)Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant /defendant entered into an agreement on 26th November, 2012 with the nomenclature "Agreement for Leave and Licence" by and under which the respondent/plaintiff allowed the appellant/defendant to occupy the suit property with effect from 1st June, 2012 for a period of eleven months with a condition to extend the same for a further period of eleven months on mutual consent. The consolidated licence fee was agreed upon at Rs. 18,660/-. The said consolidated licence fee comprised of Rs. 12,600/- as licence fee, Rs. 1260/- as monthly maintenance, Rs. 2400 as municipal corporation tax and Rs. 2400 as commercial surcharge. The consolidated licence fee was to be paid according to English Calendar month with effect from 1st June, 2012 with stipulation that any increase in municipal corporation tax and commercial surcharge (occupier's share) beyond the agreed amount shall be borne by the appellant /defendant. vii) In terms of the said agreement the appellant/defendant paid the arrears of license fees for the suit property @18,600/- and continued to pay the monthly license fees. viii) The eleven months period as per the document dated 26th November, 2012 was to end on 30th April, 2013. ix)By a letter dated 23rd March, 2013 the respondent/plaintiff informed the appellant/defendant that he was not interested in renewing the licence and thereby requested the appellant/defendant not to use the suit property on expiry of 30th April, 2013 and to station its belongings at the suit property on and from 1st May, 2013. The respondent/plaintiff also made it clear that in the event the appellant/defendant was found to use the suit property or station its belongings thereat on and from 1st May, 2013 it will be treated as a trespasser and appropriate proceedings will be initiated against the appellant/defendant. x) This notice was replied to by the appellant/defendant by a letter dated 29th April, 2013, wherein it had alleged that Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation Limited(HFCL) was the original tenant since 1961. With effect from 1st April, 2002, the Namrup Unit of HFCL was demerged and Brahmaputra Valley Fertiliser Corporation Limited (BVFCL), the appellant/defendant came to occupy the said property by an agreement of tenancy dated 22nd January, 2009 executed by and between Jaishree Bajoria (erstwhile owner) and BVFCL wherein HFCL being the outgoing tenant signed as a confirming party, the said BVFCL became a tenant of the suit property under the said Jaishree Bajoria. xi)It was further alleged that, Anirudha Jalan the respondent/plaintiff became the owner of the suit property on 15th May, 2012. Jaishree Bajoria requested BVFCL by a letter dated 16th May, 2012 to attorn the tenancy in favour of the said Anirudha Jalan and to pay the monthly rent against rent receipts with immediate effect to the said respondent/plaintiff. xii) It was also alleged that, on 16th November, 2012, at the request and insistence of Anirudha Jalan, BVFCL represented by S. Mukherjee the erstwhile in-charge of BVFCL's office at the suit property entered into a Leave & License agreement under compelling circumstances. xiii) BVFCL further alleged that, the said document dated 26th November, 2012 is a mere notarised document on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. It was not understood by BVFCL whether such a document was potent enough to determine the tenancy of BVFCL. The appellant/defendant, thus, claimed that the tenancy between itself and Jaishree Bajoria continued and the agreement of Leave & License cannot be but part of the said tenancy. xiv) BVFCL further alleged that, by a unilateral decision the respondent/plaintiff as the landlord terminated the tenancy camouflaged by an agreement for Leave & License. The termination of tenancy does depend upon the exclusive decision and sweet will of the landlord.
(3.) I) It appears from the facts and circumstances as alleged in the said reply that the intention of BVFCL was never to end the tenancy by signing the Leave & License Agreement and, as such, its old tenancy under Jaishree Bajoria continued. The agreement termed as "Leave & License" being an insufficiently stamped document and not registered cannot be given effect to. ii) BVFCL has been in exclusive possession of the suit property and was still holding and enjoying exclusive possession thereof. The lock and key of the said premises belonged to the tenant solely and the landlord had never even had the custody of it even when he purchased the premises from the erstwhile owner. iii) The unilateral decision of the landlord to terminate the tenancy on his own accord and terming BVFCL to be a trespasser is surely a sign of mala fide intention.;