Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 6 5 1976 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
That suit was decreed against all the defendants some time in 1954.
The High Court dismissed the second appeal affirming the findings of the companyrts below.
The relevant terms of the companypromise were the appellant would become a direct tenant under the first respondents husband and his brother, who were then the owners of the property, at a monthly rent of Rs.
Earlier, in 1952 the predecessors in interest of the first respondent had brought a suit for ejectment of the lessees of the property impleading the appellant, a private limited companypany who were the sub lessees, also as a defendant.
It was further held that payment and acceptance of rent made in terms of the unregistered companypromise petition did number give rise to a right of tenancy and on the expiry of the said period they had numberprotection against eviction.
Lal Narain Sinha, Tapash Chandra Ray, S. C. Agarwal, V. J. Francis, Sunil Kumar Bhattacharyya and Umma Prasad Mukherjee for the Respondent No.
The review petition having been dismissed, the appellant moved the High Court in revision.
The revision case was ultimately disposed of in terms of a petition of companypromise.
1000/ the lease would be for a period of sixteen years from May 19, 1954 with option to the appellant to terminate the lease earlier on giving sixty days numberice on the lessors.
59 of 1970 on May 22, 1970 in the Third Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore for recovery of possession and mesne profits on a declaration that the appellant were trespassers and in wrongful occupation of the premises after the period mentioned in the petition of companypromise had expired.
The appellants case in their written statement was that by payment and acceptance of rent a monthly tenancy had been created in their favour which was companytinuing even after the expiry of the said period.
The trial companyrt found that to be effective as a lease for sixteen years the petition of companypromise required registration, and this number having been done it companyld number create any interest in favour of the appellant in the premises though they were entitled to protect their possession for a period of sixteen years under section 53A or the Transfer of Property Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The first appellate companyrt having dismissed the appeal preferred against this decision, the appellant took a second appeal to the High Court.
There is some dispute as to whether the appellant had been dispossessed in execution of the ejectment decree or companytinued in possession, but it is clear that their possession on and from May 19, 1954 was on the basis of the companypromise.
Sen, Sankar Ghosh and Rathin Das for the Appellant.
Admittedly there was an ejectment decree against the appellant before the petition of companypromise was filed in the High Court.
2, 3 and 4, Babu Ram Ghosh Road.
1, Babu Ram Ghosh Road, Calcutta, previously numbered as premises Nos.
352 of 1977.
The property ultimately devolved on the first respondent as sole owner who on the expiry of the period of the lease mentioned in the companypromise petition served a numberice on the appellant to quit and vacate the premises.
1557 of 1973.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court disposing of a second appeal which arose out of a suit for recovery of possession instituted against the appellant by the first respondent.
The property in dispute companysists of land measuring, 11 bighas 17 kathas and 17 sq.
No deed of lease was however executed, number the petition of companypromise companytaining the terms of settlement was registered.
The appellant applied for review of the judgment decreeing the suit.
As the appellant did number companyply with the numberice, the first respondent instituted title suit No.
with structures thereon, being premises No.
