Skip to content


Sibrat Missir Vs. Sasthi Rathi Karkari and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.F.A.D. No. 976 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Cal168,57CWN912
ActsTenancy Law; ;West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 - Section 7(4) and 90
AppellantSibrat Missir;sasthi Rathi Karkari and ors.
RespondentSasthi Rathi Karkari and ors.; Sibrat Missir
Advocates:Chandra N. Mukherji and ;Purnendu Sekhar Basu, Advs.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- .....for a further period of 7 years. the documents themselves leave no room for doubt that the second lease was a continuation of the first lease and there is no scope for all the speculation, on the face of the unambiguous word or the documents, made by the courts below there was a continuation of the lease. therefore section 7(4) of the non-agricultural tenancy act of 1949 read with section 90 of the same actclearly and specifically applied. therefore the tenant was protected from ejectment. 3. incidentally, it may be mentioned that the court below were wrong in taking into consideration in this connection the question of variation in rent. it is the continuation of the period, not the continuity of the rent which is to be considered in connection with section 7(4) of the non-agricultural.....
Judgment:

K.C. Chunder, J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal against an appellate decree of the Subordinate Judge, 5th Additional Court, 24-Parganas, affirming that of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Sealdah.

2. The suit was for ejectment from 6 cottas of land recorded in Dag No. 312 of Khatian No. 943. It is clear that the tenancy began with a lease on 28-9-29 for 7 years. During the pendency of the lease a second lease was executed which specifically mentioned in the recital that it was 'after the expiry of the previous lease.' This lease was again for a further period of 7 years. The documents themselves leave no room for doubt that the second lease was a continuation of the first lease and there is no scope for all the speculation, on the face of the unambiguous word or the documents, made by the Courts below There was a continuation of the lease. Therefore Section 7(4) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1949 read with Section 90 of the same Actclearly and specifically applied. Therefore the tenant was protected from ejectment.

3. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the Court below were wrong in taking into consideration in this connection the question of variation in rent. It is the continuation of the period, not the continuity of the rent which is to be considered in connection with Section 7(4) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act.

4. The result therefore is that the decrees ofthe Courts below are set aside and as the tenantis now protected by the Non-Agricultural TenancyAct from ejectment the suit of the plaintiff isdismissed. Each party will bear its own costs inall the three Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //