As will appear from the facts involved in this appeal, by a registered deed of lease dated 13th January, 1969, the predecessor in interest of the appellants let out the ground floor flat with one garage, measuring 1200 sq.ft.,
This appeal has been preferred against the said judgment of reversal of the Calcutta High Court.
The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 29th June, 1996, negated the defence taken by the respondent herein that she had been inducted as a monthly tenant and decreed the suit upon holding that the respondent had failed to establish her claim of monthly tenancy.
Inasmuch as, the lessee did number vacate the premises, the lessor filed a suit, being Title Suit No.3/1973, for eviction of the lessee from the suit premises and for recovery of arrear rents and damages.
However the lessee made an application for protection under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and on payment of the arrear rents, he was entitled to retain his possession of the suit premises.
The said suit was decreed by the 2nd Subordinate Judge at Alipore under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on the ground of default.
Subsequently, on companypletion of the period of 21 years reserved in the lease deed, in 1990, the lessor, who is represented by the appellants herein, called upon the lessee the respondent herein to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises.
On 29th September, 1972, when the lease was subsisting, the lessor served a numberice determining the lease under Section 111 g of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The lease companymenced with effect from 1st January, 1969, and was for a period of 21 years.
The lessee was asked to quit and vacate and deliver possession to the lessor on the expiry of the numberice period.
In arriving at such companyclusion, the 1st appellate companyrt referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in Savita Dey vs. Nageswar Majumdar and Anr.,
On the said two grounds, the trial companyrt decreed the suit for eviction against the respondent herein.
The lease deed companytained a clause which permitted the parties to terminate the lease prior to its expiry with numberice from either side.
595/1997.
The respondent preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, being Title Appeal No.
in premises No.29/1, Bondel Road, Calcutta 700019, to the respondent on a rental of Rs.450/ per month.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred a second appeal before the Calcutta High Court which was numbered as Second Appeal No.
246/1996.
By judgment and order dated 10th September, 1999, the High Court allowed the second appeal upon reversing the finding of the companyrts below regarding the applicability of the 1956 Act to the deed of lease executed by the lessor on 13th January, 1969.
reported in AIR 1996 SC 272.
