Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7864 Cal
Judgement Date : 28 November, 2022
28.11.2022
SL No.62
Court No.8
(gc)
SAT 63 of 2016
CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No: CAN 12293 of 2016)
Dibakar Pramanick
Vs.
Jagabandhu Halder & Anr.
This matter appeared in the warning list on 16th
November, 2022 with a clear indication that the appeal
shall be transferred to the daily list on 21st November,
2022.
The appellant is not represented nor any
accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellant,
although, the appellant has sufficient knowledge and
notice of the listing of this matter. This appeal was filed
in the year 2016 but since then no attempt has been
made to move this appeal. The defects have also not been
removed.
The appellate decree dated 14.07.2015 affirming the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on
23.12.2011 is a subject matter of this second appeal. The
Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction. The suit for
eviction was filed on the ground of default. The tenancy
was determined by serving a notice under Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act. In the written statement, it
was stated that the premises in dispute had been let out
for manufacturing purposes and in view of Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act, the lease could be
2
determined by the landlord only by six months' notice
expiring with the end of the month of tenancy and since
the plaintiff had served a notice of 15 days', the same was
invalid and ineffective to terminate the tenancy. The Trial
Court decreed the suit on the ground that the document
on which reliance has been placed and termed as lease for
manufacturing purposes is not a registered document and
in absence of any registered instrument, the status of the
appellant/respondent is of a monthly tenant. The appeal
was confined to the question whether the tenancy in
favour of the appellant was one for manufacturing
purpose within the contemplation of Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act and if it is so, whether the notice
terminating tenancy was inadequate. The First Appellate
Court, in our view, has rightly dismissed the appeal by
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Shri Janki Devi Bhagat Trust, Agra Vs. Ram
Swarup Jain reported at AIR 1995 SC 2482 while
dealing with similar set of facts observed that:
"Even though the lease may be for manufacturing purpose, since the lease was not from year to year, six months' notice was not required. A manufacturing lease which is not from year to year does not require six months' notice for termination. It will fall in the second half of Section 106, requiring fifteen days' notice of termination. A lease from month to month or lease other than from year to year is terminable by fifteen day's notice."
Similar observation is made by the Apex Court in
case of Samir Mukherjee Vs. Davinder K. Bajaj & Ors.
reported at 2001 WBLR (SC) 460.
Similar view also has been taken by us in M/s Paul
Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sri Amit Chand Mitra
& Anr. being FA 36 of 2021 dated 20th July, 2022.
Since no substantial question of law is involved and
the law is well-settled, the second appeal being SAT 63 of
2016 stands dismissed at the admission stage.
In view of dismissal of the second appeal, the
application being CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No: CAN 12293 of
2016) also stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
This order shall be immediately communicated to
the learned Trial Court by the Registrar Administration
(L&OM) for information and doing the needful.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!