Ct. 8 Kuldeep Surana vs Smt. Angurabala Majumder
2022 Latest Caselaw 6583 Cal

                                                   FA 38 of 2009
Item-7.                                            CAN 5 of 2022
          14-09-2022

                                     Kanhaiya Lal Surana, since deceased,
  sg                           represented by his legal heirs and representatives,
            Ct. 8                              Kuldeep Surana
                                                     Versus
                                 Smt. Angurabala Majumder, since deceased,
                               represented by her legal heirs and representatives
                                           Pallab Majumder & Ors.


                             Mr. Asish Chandra Bagchi, Sr. Adv.
                             Mr. Prabir Kumar Misra, Adv.
                             Mr. Shibendra Nath Chattopadhyay, Adv.
                             Mr. Priyam Misra, Adv.
                                                        ...for the respondents

Mr. Asish Chandra Bagchi, learned Senior Counsel

representing the applicants/decree-holders/respondents in this

appeal has submitted that the order dated 24th August, 2022 has

not been complied with. Mr. Bagchi has further submitted that the

occupational charges have not been paid in terms of the order

dated 23rd February, 2022.

In spite of service, the appellants are not represented nor any

accommodation is prayed for on their behalf.

From the record it appears that the suit was filed for eviction

on the ground of expiry of lease.

Mr. Bagchi, in support of the judgment impugned, has

submitted that the suit is for eviction of the lessee on the expiry of

the fixed terms of lease.

Our attention is drawn to the registered lease deed in respect

of the suit premises executed on 16 th October, 1963 for a period of

35 years commencing from 1st November, 1963 and ending on 31st

October, 1998. The plaintiffs sent a notice through their learned

Advocate on 17th September, 1997 requesting the appellant to

make over its peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises after

31st October, 1998. The factum of the lease and the service of

notice upon the applicant are not in dispute. The appellant

however, contended in the trial court that he is the monthly tenant

of his tenancy which is protected under the provision of the West

Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

The learned Judge on consideration of the evidence on

record opined that the defendant is not entitled to occupy the suit

premises as tenant after the expiry of the period of lease. The

defendant could not establish at the trial that upon the expiry of

the lease, a new relationship was created as landlord and tenant

and he become a premise tenant after the expiry of the lease for

the periods covered under the lease. The relationship is required to

be governed by the registered deed and no amount of oral

evidence can be looked into to contradict the written terms in the

lease deed.

In view of the fact that the lease is for a period of more than

20 years and executed in the year 1963, the provision of Section 3

of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 shall not apply in

this case.

Under such circumstances, the appeal fails. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the connected application

being CAN 5 of 2022 also stands dismissed.

LCR may be sent down to the trial court by the department.

(Uday Kumar, J.)                                (Soumen Sen, J.)