LexRAMDAS BANSAL (D) versus KHARAG SINGH BAID & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 583 RAMDAS BANSAL (D) v. KHARAG SINGH BAIO & ORS. (Civil Appeal\No. 684 of 2012) JANUARY 19, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) A B Lflnd Laws - Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 - Calcutta Thika' and Other Tenancies and Land (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 - West Bengal Thika Tenancy C (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 - Respondent had leased out building structure standing on landed premises in favour of appellant - After expiry of lease period, respondents filed suit for recovery of vacant possession - Appellant filed application under Order XL/ Rule 27 CPC seeking to raise D plea that respondents were Thika tenants of the suit premises under the State of West Bengal and appellant had become "Bharatia"(sub-tenant) of the demised structure under the respondents - High Court rejected the application and decreed the suit - Stand of appellant that relationship between the E parties was no longer governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the appellant could be evicted only on the grounds set out in s. 13 of the 1956 Tenancy Act, however, none of such grounds had been pleaded or proved - Held: Having been granted a lease for a period of twenty one F years in respect of the building standing on the suit premises, in which a Cinema theatre was located, the appellant could never claim to be a Thika Tenant in respect of the suit premises as defined either under the 1949 Act, the 1981 Act as well as the 2001 Act - Appellant did not come within the G ambit of any of the definitions of "Thika Tenancy" under the aforesaid three Acts having been granted a lease of the structures which had already been erected on the lands long before the coming into operation of either the 1949 Act or the 583 H 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 4 S.C.R. A 1981 Act or even the 2001 Act - ProvisJOns of the 1956 Tenancy Act not applicable to appellant, whose /ease stood excluded from the operation of the aforesaid Act u/s. 3 thereof - Order of High Court accordingly upheld - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - ss. 3 and 13. B In the year 1972, respondent had leased building structure standing on landed premises in favour of the appellant for a period of twenty one years. After expiry of the lease period, respondents filed suit against the appellant for recovery of vacant possession and also C prayed for rectification of the misdescription of the premises in the lease deed as it did not tally with the description of the suit premises in the plaint. The prayer for rectification was allowed and the suit decreed by a Single Judge of the High Court. In the pending appeal D before the Division Bench, the appellant filed application under Order XU Rule 27 of CPC, to bring on record certain documents showing that by operation of law the ·respondents were the Thika tenants of the suit premises under the State of West Bengal and the appellant had E become a "Bharatia" (sub-tenant) of the demised structure under the respondents. The Division Bench rejected the application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. and dismissed the appeal. F Hence the present appeal. The appellant urged that the relationship between the parties was no longer governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the appellant could now be evicted only on the grounds set out in Section 13 of the West Bengal G Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, however, none of the grounds on which eviction could be ordered under the aforesaid Act had, in fact, been pleaded or proved. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H HELD: 1.1. The Respondents had filed Title Suit RAMDAS BANSAL (D) v. KHARAG SINGH BAIO & 585 ORS. against the appellant, inter alia, for (i) a decree for vacant A possession in respect of the suit property comprising the demised premises described in the schedule to the plaint and delineated in the map annexed thereto and marked with the letter 'B'; and (ii) if necessary, the mis-description in the lease deed dated 19.9.1972 be rectified so as to reflect the true intention of the parties with regard to the identity of the suit property. Such a prayer was made on account of the fact that the description of the suit properties in the plaint did not tally with the description B of the property in the Lease Deed itself. While in the Lease C Deed, the demised property was described as premises No.91, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata, in the p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.