KRISHNA KUMAR KHEMKA versus GRINDLAYS BANK P.L:C AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 02-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
' 
KRISHNA KUMAR KHEMKA 
A 
v. 
GRINDLAYS BANK P.L:C. AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 1990 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules: Chapter 21Rule5(a)-
Receiver of immovable property-Whether has power to lease property 
for term exceeding three years. 
Transfer of· Property Act: Sections 5 and 205-'Transfer of 
property'-'Conveys'-lnterpretation-Surrender of part of tenancy-
Does not amount to implied surrender of entire tenancy-Increasep 
reduction of rent-'-lmports surrender of existing lease and creation of 
new tenancy. 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act: Sections 11, 13( I) and 88-
Tenancy-Surrender of part---,Does not amount to implied surrender of 
entire tenancy-increase reduction of rent-Imports surrender of 
existing tease ana creation of new tenancy. 
-
c 
D 
The appellant had filed a suit in the High Court of Calcutta for a 
E 
declaration that the properties set out in the schedule belonged to a joint 
family and that the trust created by the father of the plaintiff/appellant 
in respect of the said properties was void. Pending the suit, a Receiver 
was appointed by Justice A.N. Sen. While making the appointment the 
learned Jndge had passed an order restraining the Receiver from selling 
or "transferring" any of the properties. 
F 
The proper!Y in dispute is a buildinl!I at Alipore, Calcutta, which 
comprised of four flats. Grindlays Bank Ltd., r.espondent No. 1, had 
taken all the four flats on lease for 10 years from 1st June, 1958. After 
the expiry of the period of lease, Grindlays continued to be the tei:iant. 
On 1st April, 1978 Grindlays_surrendered a portion of the tenancy, 
G 
namely, two flats i.e. flats Nos. 1 and 2, in favour of Tatas. The Receiver 
let out these two flats to M/s Tata Finlay Ltd. with effect from February 
7, 1979. 
Questioning the action of the Receiver, an application was filed in 
the High Court contending that the Receiver had no authority .to create 
H 
961 
A 
B 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
any tenancy, that he had virtually created two new tenancies after 
terminating the original tenancy of Grindlays, and that neither Grind-
lays nor'tatas was entitled to occupy the premises and they were liable 
to be evicted summarily. The learned Single Judge was not inclined to 
order summary eviction as prayed for. An appeal was filed before the 
Division Bench. The Division Bench inter alia observed that any such 
relief could he obtained in a suit but the same could not be filed in the ' 
High Court inasmuch as the permises in question was situated outside 
'r-
the Original Side Jurisdiction of the High Court. 
c 
D 
E 
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
(i) the Receiver had only such powers as were expressly granted by the 
Court; (ii) "transfer" included lease and therefore the Receiver by 
creating a new lease i.e. tenancy, had violated the injunction .order 
passed by Justice A.N. Sen; (iii) after the expiry of the stipulated period 
of lease in favour of Grindlays, the tenancy turned to be a monthly 
tenancy and therefore the entire character of tenancy changed, and the 
monthly tenancy therefore was a new tenancy; (iv) protection under the 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act could not be extended to the tenant 
of a Receiver; (v) the break up of the tenancy affected the integrity of 
the tenancy inasmuch as by virtue of this break up two new tenancies 
had come into existence; and (vi) the lease in favour of Grindlays had 
expired and by creating a monthly tenancy which may even go beyond 
three years, the Receiver had created a new lease in violation of Chap-
ter 21 Rule S(a) of the Original Side Rules. 
In reply, it was contended on behalf of Talas that a monthly 
tenancy in respect of the said two flats had been created in their favour 
and therefore they were entitled to protection under the Tenancy Act. 
) 
r 
F 
On behalf of Grindlays it was contended that after the expiry of 
. j 
the period of the original lease in !968, relationship between Grindlays 
and the Trust continued to be of landlord and _tenant; that at all mate-
rial times they retained the tenancy in re~pect of fl_ats Nos. 3 an<! 4, and 
were governed by the Tenancy Act; that the surrender of flats Nos. I 
and 2 by the Grindlays and their continuati_on as tenants at reduced 
G 
rent did not amount to a 11ew lell'!e In respect of flats Nos. 3 and 4, and 
hence there was no transfer and _no violation of the Inj

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.