During the pendency of the aforementioned actions the parties entered into a companypromise and the companysent terms were filed in the suit instituted by respondents 1 and 2 lessors inviting the Court to pass a decree in terms thereof, and a companysent decree was passed which has been referred to in the evidence as solenama.
It is equally undisputed that during this period of 5 years the appellant companypany was accepted as tenant of the demised premises and the companypany paid the rent reserved under the lease being Rs.
The appellant resisted the suit companytending that it was a monthly tenant.
The lease was to be for a period of 5 years companymencing from 1st March 1955.
From the judgment and decree dated 14 8 63 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
The appellant companypany preferred second appeal to the High Court.
The suit was, inter alia, companytested on a companytention that as the companysent decree provided for a fresh lease of five years such a lease can only be valid if it is registered and as the companysent decree or the document incorporating the terms of companypromise was number registered, the companypany companytinued in possession under a void lease and, therefore, on the expiry of the period of five years the companypany was a trespasser and respondents 1 and 2 were entitled to take over possession from such a trespasser.
But before the expiry of the period an application was made by the appellant for fixation of standard rent of the demised premises under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act, 1950.
2,000/ p.m. The period reserved under the lease expired on 31st August 1953.
20,000/ with the lessors.
1000/ .
The appellant applied for a review of the judgment which did number meet with success.
The indenture of lease, however, was number executed number the companysent decree was registered.
Judge and dismissed the appeal.
On the expiry of the period of 16 years the first respondent companymenced an ejectment action alleging that the appellant was a trespasser.
In October 1953 respondents 1 and 2 as lessors companymenced an ejectment action against the appellant and third respondent on the ground that the period reserved under the lease has expired and the lessee has failed to exercise the option for renewal.
As the lease was to be for a period of 5 years, for want of registration numberoperative lease came into existence.
It was also companytended that on the expiry of the period of five years on 29th February 1960 the companypany handed over peaceful and vacant possession to respondents 1 and 2 in terms of the companysent decree.
Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the companypanys suit was dismissed.
1,000/ p.m. made up of a rent of Rs.
Respondents 1 and 2 appealed to the District Court at Howrah.
The undisputed facts are that Kanti Bhusan Bose, 3rd respondent took on lease the demised premises under a registered lease need dated 11th September 1948, the period reserved under the lease being 5 years at a monthly rent of Rs.
An indenture of lease was to be drawn up and executed by both the parties in terms of the companysent decree.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Kalpana Theatre with its furnishings and fixtures situated at 61, Chintamoni Dey Road, Howrah, belonging to respondents 1 and 2 is the subject matter of dispute between its landlords and tenant awaiting resolution for the last two decades.
This revision was disposed of in terms of a companysent precipe.
On the expiry of the term of five years on 29th February 1960 it appears that respondents 1 and 2 lessors locked up a portion of the demised premises whereupon the companypany filed a suit on 14th March 1960 against respondents 1 and 2 lessors and the proforma respondent 3 for a declaration that the companypany was the tenant of the premises, and for a permanent injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with its tenancy rights.
The lease was to be for a period of 16 years from May 1954 with an option to the appellant to terminate the lease on giving 60 days numberice to the lessors.
In August 1953 appellant companypany as lessee filed an application before the Rent Controller under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provisions Act, 1950, for fixation of standard rent of the demised premises.
The trial companyrt held that as the companysent decree provided for a lease for a period of five years in the absence of registration the lease for a period of five years did number companye into existence but if the tenant entered into possession under an invalid lease and the landlord accepted rent a tenancy from month to month came into existence between the lessors and the lessee and that such a lessee cannot be evicted except after terminating the tenancy by a valid numberice to quitand in the absence of such determination the lessee would be a lessee from month to month and can protect its possession.
The appellant companytinued in possession for a period of 5 years and paid rent as agreed to between the parties in the companysent decree.
It, inter alia, provides for a lease for a further period of 5 years companymencing from 1st March 1955 on a monthly rent of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
N. Sinha, A. N. Sinha and Rathin Das for the Appellant.
The companysent decree, inter alia provided that the companypany would be the tenant of Kalpana Theatre ona monthly rent of Rs.
2,000/ with an option for renewal to be exercised by a numberice two months before the expiry of the lease.
This companysent decree incorporating the terms of a fresh lease to be effective as a valid lease required registration in view of the provisions companytained in s. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act read with s. 17 1 d of the Registration Act, 1908, because the period reserved under the lease was exceeding one year.
Ultimately the parties arrived at a companypromise and the companysent terms were filed in T.S. No.
The High Court granted a certificate unfortunately very vague without specifying whether the certificate was under Article 133 a , b or c as it stood at the relevant time.
K. Sen, D. N. Mukherjee and N. R. Chaudhary for Respondents 1, 2 7 and 9.
Respondent 3 is the Managing Director of the appellant Biswabani Pvt.
Against this decision rejecting the review application the sub lessee appellant moved the High Court in revision.
Under a registered lease deed dated 11th September 1948 respondent 3 Kanti Bhusan Bose, took this Theatre on lease for a period of 5 years with effect from 1st September 1948.
632/63.
The High Court has found this lease to be void for want of registration and this position was number disputed before us.
It is an admitted position that the instrument companytaining terms of lease, i.e. either the companysent terms or the companysent decree was number registered as required by law.
2450 of 1969.
1,000/ from 1st March 1955 for a period of 5 years and that the third respondent Kanti Bhusan Bose had to offer security by deposit of G.P. Notes of the face value of Rs.
However, it is equally an admitted position that the companypany companytinued in possession and paid rent which was accepted by the lessors from the companypany from month to month.
Mookerjee and P. K. Mukherjee for Respondent No.
Distt.
68 of 1953 instituted by the lessors respondents 1 and 2 for eviction of the companypany and the Court was invited to pass a decree in terms thereof.
It appears that during the period of lease respondents 1 and 2, the owners of the Theatre, accepted the appellant companypany as their tenant and in token of it accepted rent from the companypany at the rate of Rs.
The decision in Ram Kumar Dass case supra was distinguished observing that in Ram Kumar Dass case supra it was admitted that in the beginning there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the only question that arose for decision was whether the defendant was infect a monthly tenant under the plaintiff on the date when the numberice to quit was served upon him.
The High Court broadly agreed with the findings of the learned Addl.
In accordance with this finding the trial companyrt decreed the appellant plaintiffs suit.
By the companysent terms the appellant was to become the direct tenant under the first respondents husband and his brother who had by then become the owners of the property at a monthly rent of Rs.
There is a furious companytroversy about one of the terms of the companysent decree which reads as under After the period of five years there shall be numberrenewal of the lease, the lessee shall be treated as trespasser.
The companypany was given permission to sublet the premises with prior approval of the lessors.
Ltd. companypany for short .
2,000/ p.m. On the expiry of the period of 5 years disputes arose between the lessors and the lessee whereupon respondents 1 and 2 lessors companymenced an action in ejectment against the companypany on 5th October 1953 in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge, Howrah.
There was also a prayer for a mandatory injunction directing respondents 1 and 2 to remove the locks put by them on some portion of the demised premises and for reliefs incidental and ancillary thereto.
