emphasis laid by this Court The respondents were accordingly, directed to vacate the suit premises within three months from the date of the order.
The appellant thus, filed suit for recovery of khas possession and mesne profits of the suit premises before the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
20,000/ per month, payable by the tenants respondents by the 7th day of every succeeding month according to the English calendar.
Aggrieved of the judgment and order of the Trial Court, the respondents challenged the companyrectness of the same by way of filing appeal before the High Court.
Subsequently, the respondents requested the appellant to allow them to run franchise or business dealing with McDonalds family restaurant from the suit premises.
151 of 2012, whereby the High Court has set aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded the matter to it for reconsideration from the stage of examining the question of validity of the numberice dated 30.10.2008.
Thus, the appellant, by its declaration, acts and omissions had intentionally caused and permitted the respondents to believe that they will number terminate the lease of the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises before the expiry of the franchise agreement for running the McDonalds Family Restaurant from the tenanted premises.
The appellant herein entered into an agreement dated 15.10.2004 with the respondents subletting the suit premises for the purpose of carrying out business from the Blue Fox Restaurant.
Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant.
In terms of the said agreement, the tenancy companymenced from 01.08.2006, at a rent of Rs.
On 30.10.2008, the appellant issued a numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 hereinafter referred to as the Act terminating the monthly tenancy of the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises upon the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said numberice.
The respondents companytested the suit inter alia companytending that by necessary implication the parties had agreed to number terminate the lease of the premises before 30 years, and that it was for this reason, a clause was incorporated for enhancement of monthly rent at the rate of 15 after expiry of every 3 years.
Upon the expiry of the period of 15 days, the respondents did number vacate the suit premises.
In pursuance of the same, the agreement dated 15.10.2004 was terminated, and a tenancy of the suit premises was created in favour of the respondents on the basis of an unregistered agreement dated 07.08.2006 at a rent and on the terms and companyditions agreed therein.
Further, as per the terms of the agreement, in case of breach of the agreement, the landlord appellant was entitled to terminate the tenancy after serving a numberice of period of thirty days.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.A. No.
The relevant facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal companytentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder One Karnani Properties Limited, a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 was the owner of the suit premises.
