BISWABANI(P.) LTD. versus SANTOSH KUMAR DUTIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 14-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
650 
BISWABANI (/.'.) LTD. 
v. 
SANTOSH KUMAR DUTIA AND ORS. 
September 14, 1979 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
landlord and Tenant-Rent Control Proceedings for fixation of standard 
rtnJ-Consent decree-Company to he tenant for five years, indenture o/ 
leaM to he drawn and registered-Such lease not registered, landlord accept· 
ing standard rent fixed by Rent Controller-Expiry of lease period of '(i.ve 
rear~Landlord entering portion of demised premises, locking it up-Suit by 
Compaey for declaration of status as tenant and for iniunctio,;...-Company 
Jvherher entiJled to protect possession-Lease being void for want of rtgis. 
tralio~Whether has effect on company's status as tenant-Tran.sf er · of 
Property Act, s. 53A and West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956. 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 133-Certificate merely stating case fit 
D 
for appeal-Certificate defective-Dismissal 
of such 
appeal-Tra11esty of 
junice l'.'here a substantial question of lizw of general public· _importance 
rai.Jed. 
' 
The third respondent took on lease the demised 
premises 
from respon-
dents 1 and 2 under a registered lease deed dated September 11, 1948, the 
lease being for five years at monthly rent of Rs. 20001- v.·ith an option. for 
E 
renewal to· be exercised by a notice two months before the expiry of tho 
IC25e. 
Respondent 3 was the managing director of the appellnnt company. 
During the period of the aforesaid lease, the appellant company was accepted 
as tenant of the demised premises and the Company paid the rent reserved 
under the lease being Rs. 2000/- per mensem. The period reserved under 
the leac:e ·expired on August 31, 1953. But before the expiry of the 
period an application was made by the appellant for fixation of standard 
F · rent .of the demised premises under· the West Bengal Premises Rent Control 
(Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. In October 1953, respondent 
1 and Z 
as lessors commenced an ejeCtment action against 
the appellant 
and 
the 
third respondent on the ground that the lease had expired and the le88Ce 
had failed to exercise the option for ·renewal. During the pendency of the 
a.forementibned actions,. the par.ties· compromised and the consent 
decree 
inter alia provided thnt the company would_ be the tenant on a monthly 
G 
rent of Rs. 1000/- from !st 11-!arch, 1955 for a period of 5 years and that, 
after the period of five years there shall be no renewal of the lease~ t.ito 
lcuoe shall be treated as trespasser.. An indenture of lease was also to 
be dmwn up and executed by both the parties in terms of 
the 
COD!Cnt 
decree. On the expiry of the aforesaid term of five years - on 29th February~ 
1960, respondents 1 and 2, lessors having enteroo and Jocked .. a portion 
of the demised premises, the company filed a suit on 11-!arch 14, 1960 agai.,t 
H 
~ents 1 and 2, lessors and the proforma respondent 3 for a declara-
. tion -that the company was the tenant of the premises ind for an injunction 
re~tra.ining respondents 1 and 2 from interfering v.ith its tenancy rights. 
\;_ 
• 
.. 
BISWABANI (P) LTD. V. S. K. DUTTA & ORS. 
651 
The MJ.it was contC6ted on the contention that as the 
consent 
decree 
A 
proTidecl for a lresJ:i lease. of 5 years, it can only be brought about by a 
registered instrument and as tho consent decree or the document incori}orat· , 
in,; the term9 of the companies was not registered, the Company continued. 
in pos!C8Sion UBder a void tense and therefore, on the expiry of the period . 
of 5 years the Company wa! a trespasser. and respondents 1 and 2 were 
entitled to tale over possession from such a trespasser. 
The trial court held that as the ·consent decree provided for a 
le~e 
for a period of 5 years in the absence of registration the lease for a' period 
of 5 years did not come inte existence, but if tho tenant entered into 
~ession under an invalid lease and the landlord accepted rent, a tenancy 
from month to month came. into existence between the lessors and the 
le.asee and that such a lessee cannot be evicted except nfter terminating the 
tenancy by a valid notice to quit and in the absence of such determination 
the lessee would be a lessee , from mo:cth to month and can 
protect 
its 
possession and decreed the appellant-plaintiff's suit. 
/ 
In appeal by Respondents 1 tmd 2, tho District Judge held 
that 
the 
lea.'le being void, yet the lessors would not be entitled to disturb the posses--
sion of the ienant for a period of S ye an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.