Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dibakar Pramanick vs Jagabandhu Halder & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7864 Cal

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7864 Cal
Judgement Date : 28 November, 2022

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dibakar Pramanick vs Jagabandhu Halder & Anr on 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.)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter