LexM/S. K.B. SAHA & SONS PVT. LTD. versus M/S. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 290 ~ ~ A MIS. K.B.SAHA & SONS PVT. LTD. V. MIS. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5659-5660 Of 2002) B MAY 12, 2008 [A.K. MATHUR AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 'J. West Bengal Premises!Tenancy Act, 1956: c s. 13(1b) - Protection to tenant- Change of user- Pre- mises let out to a company for residence of its named officer - Company intending to allot the premises to some other employee - Suit by landlord for ejectment on the ground of violation of s.108(0) of Transfer of Property Act- HELD. Lease agreement having not been registered, the same is inadmis- +~ D sible in evidence -Proviso to s. 49 of Registration Act is not applicable as use o1 the document to prov violation of s. 108( 0) of Transfer of Property Act is not a 'collateral purpose' - Even otherwise, if company allotted the premises for residence of any employee other than the named one, it would not be E 'change of user'- For a decree of eviction under the Act. land- lord has to plead and prove one of the grounds mentioned in s. 13 of the Act - On facts, appellant is not entitled to a decree of eviction under the Act - Transfer of Property Act. 1882 - ss • 107 and 108 - Registration Act. 1908 - s.49, proviso. ..... F Transfer of Property Act, 1882. ss. 107 - Lease agreement letting out the premises for residence on monthly rental - Not registered - Admissibility of in evidence - 'Change of user' - Connotation of - Registra- G tion Act, 1908 - s.49, proviso - Deeds and documents. Words and Phrases.· .__. Expressions 'collateral purpose· and change of user' - .... Connotation of in the context of s 108 of Transfer of Property H 290 ,. _..( ~ -~ ~ • 1 MIS. K.B. & SONS PVT LTD. v. M/S. DEVELOPMENT291 CONSULTANT LTD. Act and s. 49 of Registration Act. A The suit premises were let out by the appellant-plain- tiff to the respondent-company for residence of its par- ticular officer, namely, 'KD' on a monthly rent. According to the plaintiff the agreement dated 30.3.1976 provided that B if the respondent intended to use the premises for any purpose other than providing residential accommodation to 'KD', it would have to seek a written permission there- for from the appellant. By a letter dated 6.3.1992, the re- spondent informed the appellant that 'KD' had vacated the suit premises and that it wanted to make repairs and c to allot the same to another employee. The appellant re- plied asking the respondent to surrender the premises, but to no avail. Therefore, the appellant filed Title Suit No. 19/92 for declaration and permanent injunction that in terms of the agreement dated 30.3.1976 the respondent D had no right to allot the suit premises to any other em- ployee after the same was vacated by 'KD'. The trial court passed an interim injunction. On 18.3.1995 a notice was served upon the respondent to vacate the suit premises and on its non-compliance, Title Suit No. 39/95 was filed E for ejectment of the respondent. The case of the respon- dent was that the suit premises were let out to it and not to its officer and even after the said officer vacating the same, tenancy of the respondent continued and the same was protected by the provisions of the West Bengal Pre- F mises Tenancy Act, 1956. The suits were dismissed by the trial court and so also the appeals by the High Court. In the instant appeals filed by the plaintiff-landlord, it was contended for the appellant that the lease agreement creating tenancy from month to month was not compul- G sorily registrable u/s 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and, as such, the prohibition contained in s.49 of the Registration Act, 1908 was not applicable; therefore, trial court erred in holding that the lease agreement being an unregistered document could not be used to estab- H 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 8 S.C.R. ~ .. A lish the provisions made therein that the premises were let out for occupation of the named officer of the respon- dent and for no other purposes. In the alternative it was contended that the purpose of letting as specified in the lease agreement was a 'collateral purpose' and, therefore, B the document could be looked into under the proviso to s.49 of the Registration Act. It was submitted that the re- spondent had violated s.108(0) of the Transfer of Prop- -;.. - erty Act and, accordingly was liable to be evicted u/s 13(1 b) of the Act. c None appeared for the respondent desp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.