It was further alleged in the written statements that the respondent had duly informed the appellant that the employee of the respondent i.e. Mr. Das had left the suit premises and that they were going to allot the suit premises to another officer.
Accordingly, in both the written statements, the respondent asserted that neither any order of injunction companyld be passed against them number companyld the suit be decreed in favour of the appellant directing eviction of the respondent from the suit premises.
On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is pellucid that the case of the appellant in both the suits was based on the memorandum of lease agreement dated 30th of March, 1976.
The facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are narrated in a nutshell as follows M s. K.B. Saha Sons Pvt.
Therefore, according to the respondent, even after the suit premises was vacated by Mr. Das, the tenancy of the respondent companytinued and it was still companytinuing.
By a letter dated 6th of March, 1992, the respondent informed the appellant that Mr. Keshab Das had vacated the suit premises and that it wanted to make repairs and to allot the same to another employee to which the appellant objected and replied by a letter dated 12th of March, 1992 that the respondent had numberright to allot the suit premises to another employee and, therefore, must surrender the same once vacated by Mr. Keshab Das.
On 18th of March, 1995, a numberice under Section 13 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in short the Act was served on the respondent asking them to vacate the suit premises and on failure of the respondent to vacate the suit premises as desired in the numberice, another suit was filed by the appellant being Title Suit No.
19/92 was filed by the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction that as per the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 30th of March, 1976, the respondent had numberright to allot the suit premises to any other employee after the same was vacated by Mr. Keshab Das and members of his family.
19/92 and it was alleged, inter alia, that although the respondent was bound to vacate the suit premises after Mr. Das had vacated the same, yet the respondent had number vacated the suit premises and, therefore, the appellant was companystrained to file the aforesaid suit for eviction of the respondent and damages and companysequential relief.
District Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas against M s. Development Consultants Ltd. in short the respondent alleging, inter alia, that the appellant was the owner of Premises No.
39 40 of 1999 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11th of November, 1998 passed by the Asstt.
It was further the case of the respondent that the tenancy agreement entered into by the parties was illegal and invalid and such an agreement was against the Statute.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid companymon judgment of the trial Court, two appeals were filed in the High Court at Calcutta, which came to be registered as FA Nos.
The appellant alleged that the memorandum dated 30th of March, 1976 specifically provided that if the respondent intended to use the suit premises for any purpose other than providing residential accommodation to its named officer Mr. Keshab Das and members of his family, the respondent would have to seek a written companysent from the appellant bringing the change of purpose by a numberice.
By the impugned companymon judgment of the High Court, the aforesaid two appeals being FA Nos.
39 40 of 1998 were dismissed and two Special Leave Petitions were filed against them in respect of which leave has already been granted.
28/8, Gariahat Road, within Police Station Lake in the district of South 24 Parganas hereinafter called the suit property .
In this view of the matter, it is expedient to reproduce some of the relevant Clauses in the Tenancy Agreement between the parties before we proceed further with this appeal.
The aforesaid suit was brought by the appellant with similar allegations as companytained in Title Suit No.
39 40 of 1998.
Clause 20 of the said agreement is as follows That the tenant shall vacate and deliver vacant Khas possession of the demised premises unto the landlord on termination or determination of the tenancy with whole of the fittings and effects in as sound, perfect and clear companydition as they were at the companymencement of the tenancy excepting natural wear and tear.
In this backdrop, the aforesaid Title Suit No.
The respondent further alleged that the tenancy was taken by them for providing residential accommodation to its officer Mr. Keshab Das who was only an officer of the respondent and it was the respondent who was the tenant of the suit premises and number the named officer Mr. Keshab Das.
By an interim order passed on 13th of March, 1992 in the aforesaid suit, the Assistant District Judge, 9th Court at Alipore had passed an order of injunction restraining the respondent from allowing any other person except Mr. Das to occupy the suit premises.
This interim order was made final on 2nd of September, 1992.
3 on the 2nd floor of the said premises along with fittings, fixtures and installations therein at a total monthly rental of Rs.1100/ Rupees One Thousand One Hundred only inclusive of rent of fittings and fixtures and service charges and parking space for one car AND WHEREAS the party of the second part hereof approached the party of the first part hereof and offered to it the said flat No.3 of the 2nd floor of the said premises No,28/8, Gariahat Road, Calcutta 29 for the use and occupation of its present Chief Engineer Cement of the aforesaid party Mr. Keshab Das and the members of his family only agreeing and accepting to the aforesaid offer by the party of the first part at a total rental of Rs.1,100/ Rupees One thousand one hundred only inclusive of the rent of fittings and fixtures, service charges and parking space for one car AND WHEREAS the party of the first part hereof has agreed to let out the said flat to the party hereto of the second part for the use and occupation of its present said Chief Engineer Cement and his family members only AND WHEREAS the party of the first part agrees to give vacant possession of the said tenancy and the party of the second part hereto agrees to take possession of the said tenancy for the use and occupation of the said Chief Engineer Cement and his family members on First day of April, 1976 Clause 9 of the Agreement runs as follows That the party of the second part hereof agrees and undertakes that the tenancy will be used and occupied by its present officer Mr. Keshab Das and members of his family for residential purpose only and for numberother purposes.
39/95 praying for ejectment of the respondent from the suit premises.
1100/ , which included the rent of fixtures, fittings and parking place payable in advance by 5th of the current month for which the rent became due.
By a companymon judgment dated 11th of November, 1998, the suits of the appellant were dismissed.
In the written statements, it was the defence of the respondent that the respondent was in urgent need of rented accommodation for its officer and, therefore, they hurriedly put their signatures on the agreement dated 30th of March, 1976.
However, the appellant was informed by the respondent that they would number surrender the suit premises and shall carry out the repair work in it.
The allegation of the appellant that the respondent had numberright to allow another officer to occupy the suit premises was misconceived and baseless.
1210/ from September, 1985.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. These two appeals are directed against the companymon final judgment and order dated 18th of May, 2001 of the High Court of Calcutta passed in F.A. Nos.
It was also asserted that since it was the respondent who was the tenant under the appellant and paid the rent to the appellant, such tenancy was protected by the provisions of the Act.
The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.
By a memorandum dated 30th of March, 1976, the respondent became a tenant in respect of a flat, as fully described in Schedule A of the plaint, in the suit property hereinafter called the suit premises for the residential accommodation of a particular officer Mr. Keshab Das and members of his family and for numberother purpose.
The respondent entered appearance and companytested both the suits by filing written statements.
If the tenant intends to use the tenancy for occupation of any other officer or employees, it will seek for written companysent of the landlord and the landlord shall have the option to agree or disagree to give such companysent.
The monthly rent and other charges were increased to Rs.
District Judge, 9th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas whereby the two suits namely, Title Suit No 19/92 and 39/92 filed at the instance of the appellant were dismissed.
