Calcutta High Court
Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd vs Hindustan Wires Ltd on 22 July, 2025
Author: Sugato Majumdar
Bench: Sugato Majumdar
OD - 2, 3 & 4
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/3/2017 (Old No: GA/1374/2017)
[OLD NO. CS/189/2011]
In CS-COM/690/2024
RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD.
Vs
HINDUSTAN WIRES LTD.
IA NO. GA-COM/4/2024
[OLD NO. CS/189/2011]
In CS-COM/690/2024
RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD.
Vs
HINDUSTAN WIRES LTD.
IA NO. GA-COM/5/2025
[OLD NO. CS/189/2011]
In CS-COM/690/2024
RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD.
Vs
HINDUSTAN WIRES LTD.
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Date: 22nd July, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Suman Kr. Dutt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Saunak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Shreyashee Das, Adv.
Mr. Tridibesh Dasgupta, Adv.
...for the Plaintiff
Mr. Utpal Kr. Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Megnad Dutta, Adv.
Mr. S. Rudra, Adv.
....for the Defendant
2
The Court: GA-COM 4 of 2024 has been filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner,
praying for passing summary judgment and decree in terms of Claim no. (a) and (e)
of the plaint; in the alternative directing the Defendant/Respondent to deposit with
this Court and/or otherwise furnish sufficient security for a sum of Rs.12,52,72,745/-
for restitution of losses, suffer and to continue to deposit and/or furnish security for
a sum of Rs.26,401/- per day along with other prayers.
That the original lease, being the genesis of possessory right of the
Defendant/Respondent expired on or about 14/11/1982 by efflux of time.
Subsequently, a monthly tenancy was created, on and from the month of January
1991. The Defendant/Respondent had been making payment of Rs.11,000/- towards
monthly rent.
The Defendant/Respondent filed Suit No. 273 of 2000 in this Court, praying
for framing of scheme for maintenance of common area; declaration that the present
Defendant/Respondent was a monthly tenant under the present Plaintiff in respect
of the suit premises injunctive prayers and others.
Subsequently, an ejectment suit was filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner being
Ejectment Suit No. 1 of 2001 in the Court of City Civil of Calcutta which was
dismissed later on. Defendant's/Respondent's payable rent was Rs.11,000/- per
month. The tenancy of the Defendant/Respondent was determined. A notice of
termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dated
16/05/2011 had been served upon the Defendant/Respondent. On expiry of fifteen
days from May 16, 2011, the Defendant/Respondent is liable to quit, vacate and
deliver up possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff/Petitioner. Hence, the
instant application is filed under the Rule XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
for summary judgment, since, there is no triable issue exists.
In affidavit-in-opposition, Respondent/Defendant refuted all the contentions
of the application. Main contention of the Defendant/Respondent is that payable
rent is actually Rs.8,029/- per month. Addition of maintenance charges and
occupier's share of municipal tax and/or property tax made the sum of money
payable to the Plaintiff/Petitioner was Rs.11,000/- per month.
It is contended that actual payable tent of Rs.8029.20/- per month brought
the tenancy within the ambit of the West Bengal Premises and Tenancy Act, 1997.
The sum of Rs.11,000/- per month which the Defendant/Respondent used to pay to
the Plaintiff/Petitioner is only a composite rent. It is further contended that since
the tenancy came within the ambit of West Bengal Premises and Tenancy Act, 1997,
termination of the same by fifteen days' notice under Section 106 is not only bad but
also failed to determine/terminate the tenancy keeping the same very much living.
According to the Defendant/Respondent, the application is not maintainable and
should be dismissed.
Affidavit-in-Reply was filed.
Both the Learned Counsels filed notes of arguments.
The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Petitioner vehemently argued that the
term rent is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed by the tenant to
be paid to his landlord for use an occupation not only of the building and its
appurtenances but also furnishing electric installation and other amenities agreed
upon. Abdul Kader Vs. G.D. Govindaraj [(2002) 5 SCC 51] was relied upon.
It is further submitted, relying upon in Payal Vision Limited Vs. Radhika
Choudhary [(2012) 11 SCC 405], that in a suit for recovery of possession from a
tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of Rent Control Act, all
that is required to be established by the Plaintiff/landlord is the existence of jural
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and termination of the
tenancy by lapse of time or by notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. So long these aspects are not in dispute, the Court can pass a
decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The
Learned Counsel also referred to in Mayank Poddar & Ors. Vs. Development
Consultant Ltd. (AIR 2005 Cal 246) as well as Apollo Zipper India Limited
Vs. W. Newman & Company Limited [(2018) 6 SCC 744] to substantiate his
contention.
Sum and substance of the argument of the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bose
appearing for the Defendant/Respondent was firstly that two suits being the present
one as well as CS 273 of 2000 was decided to be heard analogously and issues had
been framed in both the suits although subsequently issues were cancelled. It was
contended that in view of Rule 2 (2) of Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 since issues had been framed, no application for summary judgment can be
passed. Secondly, it was argued that it was the present suit is barred and not
maintainable, since the tendency of the Defendant/Respondent comes within the
ambit of the West Bengal Premises and Tenancy Act, 1997 and no statutory notice
under Section 13(6) of the Act had been given. Thirdly, it was argued that strong
disputed question of facts exist on the nature of tenancy and the applicable statute.
Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent, the
application is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard rival submissions.
Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for passing summary
judgment. Rule 2 provides that an applicant may apply for summary judgment at
any time after summons has been served on the Defendant/Respondent provided
that no application for summary judgment may be made after framing of issues.
Rule 3 provides that summary judgment may be given against a
Defendant/Respondent if a Defendant/Respondent has no real prospect of
successfully defending the claim.
Coming to the case in hand, strong disputed questions exist on the nature of
tenancy. The Plaintiff/Petitioner claims that the tenancy was covered under the
Transfer of Property Act, 1908 whereas the Defendant/Respondent claims otherwise.
It is contended in the written statement that the tenancy comes within the ambit of
the rent control legislation particularly the West Bengal Premises and Tenancy Act,
1997. It is also contended that although composite rent was Rs.11,000/- actual rent
was less than Rs.10,000/- which brought the tenancy within the ambit of the Act of
1997. Nature of tenancy, payable rent is mixed question of law and facts. In view of
such disputed question of fact and law which is to be decided on evidence in trial, it
cannot be said that the Defendant/Respondent has no prospect of success in the suit.
Issues were framed initially. Thereafter, in terms of the Order dated 09/08/2016,
issues were cancelled with direction to frame the issues after discovery and
inspection.
In view of this complicated question of fact and law, summary judgment in
respect of the suit cannot be passed and the merit of the contention should be
decided on evidence only.
Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed.
The suit along with all pending applications may be placed before the Bench
having determination of commercial dispute.
(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)
