JNAN RANJAN SEN GUPTA & ORS. versus ARUN KUMAR BOSE

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 105 · Decided: 24-07-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
• ' 
, 
~-
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JNAN RANJAN SEN GUPTA & ORS. 
v . 
ARUN KUMAR BOSE 
July 24, 1975 
105 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AKD N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act-Section 108(0)-S. 2(5) Calcutta Thika Tenancy 
Act, 1949-Thika te11a11t-Co11struction of a beneficial legiSlatiu11. 
In 1956, the landlord let out for one year the land in question to the tenant 
on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. One of the conditions of the tenancy was that 
the premises should not be used for any purpose other than the keeping of the 
lorries as garage. The landlord asked the tenant to vacate by a notice to quit. 
fhe landlord, filed a suit for eviction which was resisted by the tenant on the 
ground that he was a Thika tenant under Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. 
The High Court held that the tenant was a Thika tenant. The definition of a 
Thika tenant is a tenant who has erected or acquired hy purchase or gift any 
structure on such land for residential, manufactHring or business purpose and 
includes the successors in interest of such person. 
Admittedly, in the present 
case the tenant bas erected a structure. The counS\":l for the appellant landlord 
contends that since the- structure was erected by the tenant without the permis-
sion of the landlord. it is not a lawful erection of struclure. The Thika Tenancy 
Act does not talk about the consent of the landlord. 
The Court, therefore, 
must look at the Transfer of Property Act where section 108(0) prohibits the 
premises to be used for any purpose other than the one for which it is leti out. 
According to the appellant, the premises were let out for garage and. therefore. 
the erection of' structuries for the purpose of running the workshop would attract 
section 108(0) of the T'ransfer of Property Act. 
HELD : Negativing the contention of the appellant. 
The tenancy in question does not militate against the construction of struc-
tures and use of the land for the purpose of workshop for maintenance of 
lorries by the tenant. 
A garage is a building where motor vehicles are housed. 
The tenant has not used the ]and for purpose other than the purpose for which 
it was leased. 
S.2(5) of the Act does not require a Thika Tenant to secure prior 
permission of the landlord for erection of structures on the land. A:. the pream· 
ble shows the Act: is for making better provision relating to the law of land-
lord and tenant in respect of Thika tenancies. It is a piece of beneficial legis· 
lation conferring certain rights upon the tenants. Tn dealing with such a provi-
sion of law we cannot read into the definition something which is not already 
there and the introduction of which will lead to imposing a restriction upon 
the rights of this class of tenants by judicial interpretation. Besides, there is 
no vagueness or uncertainty in the definition clause. [108 E-Hl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1973. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
the 
25th April, 1972 of the Calcutta High Court in Second Appeal being 
appeal No. 859 of 1969. 
Sachendra Chowdhary, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia for the 
appellant. 
P. Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GOSWAMI, J.--ln this appeal by special leave directed against the 
judgment of the Culcutta High Court the only question that arises for 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] I S.C.R. 
consideration is whether ,the respondent is a thika tenant under section 
A 
2(5) of the Calcutta Thika Tena•acy Act 194.9. 
On June I, 1956, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (the 
latter, hereinafter to be described as the landlord) gave the land with 
which we arc concerned in this appeal to the respondent (herein>aftcr 
to be described as the tenant) for occupation as a tena'at on a monthly 
rent of Rs. 75/- for one year. 
One of the conditions of the tenancy 
was that ''the premises shall not be used for any purpose other than 
keeping of the lorries as gamge." 
Another condition of the tena·acy 
was that "the lessee will on the expiration of one 
year 
peacefully 
surrender and yield up vacant possession to the lessor." 
On July 29, 
1958, the landlord's advocate sent a notice of eviction to the tenant to 
vacate a·ad deliver possession of the land on the expiry of August 1958. 
The ten-ant through his advocate by a letter of August 29, 1958, denied 
liability for eviction asserting that there was no violation of any t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.