The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. Leave granted.
K. Banerjee, Subrat Rai Choudhary, Gopal Subramanium, P. Aggarwala, Anil Aggarwala, P.C. Sharma, L.P. Aggarwala, Ms. Indira Banerjee, R.N. Jhunjhunwala, Praveen Kumar, C.S. Vaidyanathan, P.R. Seetharaman, D.N. Mukherjee, Raj Kumr Gupta and P.C. Kapur for the appearing parties.
This appeal is directed against the order of the Divi sion Bench of the High Court of Calcutta.
However, at all material times they retained the tenancy in respect of Flat Nos.
In the letters written it is also stated by the Grind lays that their companytinuation as tenant of flat Nos.
The appellant was transposed as the plaintiff in the Original Side suit No.
Grindlays Bank Limited Grindlays for short , respondent No.
Various companytentions were raised before the Division Bench and ultimately the Division Bench having companysidered the several submissions passed an order, the operative portion of which reads as follows Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get a decree for possession on any ground mentioned in Section 13 1 of the said Act and such relief can be obtained in a suit which cannot be filed in this companyrt inasmuch as the premises in question is situated outside the original side jurisdiction of this Court.
A tenant let into possession by a Receiver appointed by Court literally appears to satisfy the defini tion of cultivating tenant and the Receiver, the defini tion of Landlord because the former carried on personal cultivating under a tenancy agreement.
1 and 2 by the Grindlays a fresh tenancy was created by the receiver from 1st April, 1978 and the other tenancy in favour of Tatas is beyond the powers of the receiver and that the receiver had numberauthority to create any tenancy either in favour of Grindlays or Tatas.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.
1 and 2 by the letters dated 10th March, 1978 and 29th March, 1978 addressed to the receiver in favour of Tatas.
2479/67 in the High Court of Calcutta.
The suit was filed for a declaration that the various properties set out in the Schedule belonged and still belong to the joint family companysisting of the members mentioned in the plaint.
38, New Road, Alipore, building with open space was one of the properties belonging to the trust.
Pending the suit an application was filed for appointment of a receiver for the various properties mentioned in Schedule A annexed to the petition, for injunction and for other reliefs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Premises No.
1986 of the Calcutta High Court in Suit No.
1 and 2 which came into effect from 1st April, 1978.
One Mr. S.C. Sen was appointed as Receiver.
It was companytended before the Division Bench that upon surrender of Flats Nos.
3 and 4 was acknowledged by the receiver by his letter dated 15th May, 1978.
3 and 4 and companytinued to be tenant in respect of those flats and they are also governed by the act.
A declaration was also sought in the suit that the trust dated October 20th, 1948 created by late Gopi Krishna Khemka, father of the plaintiff, is void and for cancellation of the same.
As against the order of the learned Single Judge, an appeal was filed before a Division Bench.
2072 of 1990.
2479 of 1967.
1 herein was the original tenant and they were occupying four flats and they surrendered a portion of the tenancy namely two flats i.e. Flats Nos.
The stand taken by the Grindlays is that the premises in question companyprised of four flats and they took all the four flats for 10 years on lease from 1st June, 1958.
After the expiry of the period of the said lease relationship between Grindlays and the Trust companytinued to be that of landlord and tenant governed by the Act, and that in 1977 they agreed to surrender Flat Nos.
