M/S. Ghosh & Nandi Company vs Sg Estate Manager & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6837 Cal

SA 67 of 2021 Item-28.

           22-09-2022
                                        M/s. Ghosh & Nandi Company
                                                   Versus
  sg                                       Estate Manager & Ors.
             Ct. 8

In terms of the order dated 27th January, 2022, a report is

filed by the Assistant Registrar-XVI dated 17th May, 2022.

The report filed by the Assistant Registrar-XVI dated 17 th

May, 2022 shall be placed in the Administrative Side.

The appellate judgment and decree dated 10th February,

2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16 th August, 2002

passed by the Trial Court in a suit for permanent injunction is the

subject matter of this second appeal.

The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit. The Appeal

Court affirmed the said decree. The Trial Court on the basis of the

oral and documentary evidence arrived at a finding that it is a

admitted position that when the plaintiff filed the suit, he was

facing an eviction and accordingly, it cannot be contended that the

defendant has adopted any step de hors the provision of the law.

In fact, for the purpose of taking possession, the defendant has

issued a notice to quit and has not made any attempt to dispossess

the plaintiff from the suit property by using any force. The suit

property comprised of three tanks that were leased to the plaintiff

company by the Urban Development Department. The said lease

was exclusively extended for two years and the last extension was

made on 1st January, 1990. The plaintiff urged before the trial

court that although an application for extension of the lease period

was made and an assurance was made that the it would extend, the

defendant issued notice to quit and vacate possession of the suit

property. Admittedly, the lease period has expired and recently is

not a matter of fact.

The Appeal Court did not interfere with the notice to quit

and having found that the plaintiff is not entitled to be in

possession, dismissed the suit for permanent injunction.

Moreover, as per the lease agreement (Exhibit 3) which was

agreed between the parties that upon expiry of the lease and

licence, the licensee would make over the possession of the said

tank in the same conditions as the same were when the period of

licence granted commenced. The plaintiff company was merely a

licensee. The plaintiff could not prove that the defendant has

threatened to dispossesses the plaintiff without due process of law.

It is an admitted position that the licence period is over and even if

it is considered to be a lease that had expired by the efflux of time.

In the instant case, the lease or licence was determined on 31 st

December, 1991 that is by efflux of time, the notice to demand

possession is permitted under the agreement.

On such consideration, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the orders passed by both the courts. The second

appeal is not admitted and the same stands dismissed at the

admission stage. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

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