2005 (4) TMI 621 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Recovery of possession and mesne profits for 'B' Schedule property.
2. Trespass over 'C' Schedule property.
3. Relationship of landlord and tenant.
4. Requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
5. Applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
6. Maintainability of the suit by the plaintiffs in their individual capacity.
7. Default in payment of rent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recovery of Possession and Mesne Profits for 'B' Schedule Property:
The High Court restored the decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits regarding 'B' Schedule property in favor of the plaintiffs. The Subordinate Court had decreed the suit, holding that the appellant's tenancy ended by efflux of time on 13th April 1959, and there was no necessity to determine the tenancy by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court found that the lease was for the business of iron casting foundry, not the premises, thus not falling under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

2. Trespass Over 'C' Schedule Property:
The Subordinate Court and the Appellate Court found that 'C' Schedule property was not included in the settlement and the appellant had trespassed upon it. The High Court affirmed this finding, establishing that the appellant's occupation of 'C' Schedule property was illegal and by way of trespass.

3. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:
The Subordinate Court established that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties regarding 'B' Schedule property. The appellant was estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from disputing the plaintiffs' title. The High Court agreed with this finding, emphasizing that the lease was of the business, not the premises.

4. Requirement of Notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The Appellate Court initially held that tenancy could not be determined without issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the High Court set aside this finding, concluding that the settlement was of the business and not the premises, thus not requiring such notice.

5. Applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:
The High Court determined that the lease was for the business of iron casting foundry, not the premises, and therefore, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, did not apply. The court relied on precedents such as Uttamchand vs. S.M. Lalwani and Dwarka Prasad vs. Dwarka Das Saraf, which distinguished between leases of premises and businesses.

6. Maintainability of the Suit by the Plaintiffs in Their Individual Capacity:
The Appellate Court had questioned the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiffs in their individual capacity, considering the original settlement was made by a partnership firm. However, the High Court held that after the dissolution of the partnership firm, the plaintiffs could file the suit in their individual capacity.

7. Default in Payment of Rent:
The High Court's finding that the appellant had defaulted in the payment of rent was challenged. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs did not plead default in rent payment, nor was there any issue framed on this point. Consequently, the High Court erred in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of default in rent payment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment and decree, dismissing the appeal. The High Court correctly identified the lease as one of the business, not the premises, thereby excluding it from the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The findings regarding trespass, the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the maintainability of the suit were upheld. The Supreme Court, however, found the High Court erred in holding the appellant defaulted in rent payment due to lack of pleadings and evidence. The appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.