Appellant failed to vacate the B Schedule property as well as to pay the rent after 1363 B.S. Original plaintiff number.
Contention raised by the companynsel for the respondents that the settlement dated 27th July, 1954 entered into between Narendra Nath Singha and predecessors in interest of the appellant was number the tenancy of premises as had been held by the companyrts below but was the tenancy of the karbar business of iron casting foundry along with the machineries and sheds and structures wherein the foundry was set up was accepted.
He raised certain companystructions including sheds on B Schedule property, a part of A Schedule property and set up an iron casting foundry under the name and style of L. Singha and Company, which was run by him till his death.
Appeal filed by the appellant with regard to C Schedule property was dismissed.
Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under One Hangeswar alias Narendra Nath Singha on 4th February, 1936 obtained settlement lease hold interest for A Schedule property, i.e. premises number77, Benaras Road, Howrah admeasuring 3 Bighas including a tank from Sear Sole Raj Estate.
1 and 2 settled the whole karbar business of iron casting foundry along with land and all fittings and fixtures in favour of one Kalipada Mondal and Bahar Bala Dassi on 27th July, 1954, for a period of five years starting with the month of Baisakha 1361 B.S. Bangabda Samvat for short B.S. Bangla year to Chaitra 1365 B.S. at a monthly rent of Rs.
It was held that C Schedule property was number let out to the appellant and the appellant had taken possession of the same by companymitting trespass.
There was numbernecessity to determine the tenancy by issuing a numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Appellant being aggrieved preferred Title Appeal number 52/1976 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Court in favour of the plaintiff respondents.
1 and 2, feeling aggrieved by the companyduct of the appellant, instituted the present suit number 65/1965 for recovery of possession of B and C Schedule properties and for mesne profits.
Service of numberice under Section 13 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for short the Act was sufficient to put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
By the impugned judgment the High Court has restored the decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits with regard to Plaint B Schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs original respondent number.1 2 since deceased and number represented by their legal representatives , setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.52/1976 and restoring that of the Trial Court.
The allegation that the appellant had trespassed over C Schedule property was denied.
It was held that since the Trial Court had found tenancy to be a premises tenancy, it must be governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and, therefore, neither expiry of the period of settlement number the assignment of the interest created thereunder in favour of the appellant can be a ground for eviction of the appellant.
That the settlement dated 27th July, 1954 was made by the respondents in their character as a partnership firm and therefore suit for eviction filed by them in their individual capacity was number maintainable.
High Court heard the second appeal and cross objections together and disposed them of by passing a companymon judgment.
After his death on 31st May, 1954, his legal heirs, original respondent number.
By successive transfers, interest of original lessees settlees came to be acquired by the appellant on 18th January, 1956 A.D. Settlement in favour of the appellant came to an end by efflux of time in Chaitra 1365 B.S., equivalent to, 13th April, 1959.
Cross objections filed by the plaintiff respondents were allowed granting decree for recovery of possession of B Schedule property.
Appellant in the written statement, interalia denied the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property as well as existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them.
Feeling aggrieved by the findings of the Appellate Court with respect to the trespasser over C Schedule property, appellant preferred Second Appeal number 646/1977 and being aggrieved by the setting aside of the decree with respect to B Schedule property, plaintiff respondents filed cross objections in the High Court.
It was held that the evidence on record established as found companycurrently by the companyrts below that the occupation of the appellant on the said property was illegal and by way of trespass.
With respect to B Schedule property the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside.
It was held that the predecessors in interest of the appellant became tenant of the premises by virtue of settlement of karkhana factory together with the land underneath in their favour.
It was also held that the appellant had companymitted default in payment of rent of B Schedule property.
Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Court that C Schedule property was number companyered by the settlement dated 27th July, 1954 and was trespassed upon by the appellant.
Plaintiff respondent number.
That relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties with regard to B Schedule property.
Appellant having stepped into their shoes is estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from disputing the title of the plaintiffs.
The settlement came to an end by efflux of time on 13th April, 1959.
466/3 annas.
After the withdrawal of said suit, appellant trespassed over C Schedule property, i.e. remaining A Schedule property companysisting of a tank and its three banks.
Subordinate Court decreed the suit with respect to both B and C Schedule properties.
BHAN, J. This appeal by grant of special leave has been filed by defendant number1, the appellant herein, against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Calcutta.
1 and 2 instituted suit number 11/1959 against the appellant but the same was withdrawn due to some formal defects with liberty to file a fresh suit.
Appellant filled up the tank, raised certain structures thereon and extended its work over the said property.
