Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Decision in Lease Renewal Dispute, Orders Fresh Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Application**

Share:
medical bank pay Run Payment absence acquisition Police judicial Rape Electricity death justice Driver Foreigners passport claims Affidavits husband Assault Knowledge Teacher cbi Judicial evidence Financial evidence certified Evidence Electricity Principal Evidence Calcutta evidence Police public Absence landaim teachers cheque plan Criminal boycott

The Calcutta High Court, in a significant decision, has set aside the order of a lower court in a lease renewal dispute involving Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayanji and others versus Sarad Kumar Burman, since deceased, represented by Sharada Burman and others. The High Court directed a fresh hearing of the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, highlighting the need for careful consideration of admissions in pleadings.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, presiding over the case, observed, *”the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law for want of propriety.”* This statement came in the context of the trial court’s decision to reject the plaintiffs’ application for a part decree based on the defendants’ admissions about the lease terms.

The dispute centers around a lease agreement initially granted for 30 years with an option for renewal for an additional 21 years. The plaintiffs, who are the lessors, moved to recover possession and mesne profit following the defendants’ failure to vacate the property after the lease expired. The defendants, in response, filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration for the lease’s renewal and argued against eviction without appropriate compensation.

In an interesting turn of events, the defendants also raised the issue of Thika Tenancy. However, the High Court noted that this plea was not initially included in their pleading and an attempted amendment to include it was subsequently rejected by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Justice Mukherjee critically pointed out the trial court’s error in relying on extraneous considerations beyond the pleadings while deciding on the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6. He emphasized the importance of basing decisions on the admissions made in pleadings, stating, *”While considering an application under order XII Rule 6, the admissions made in the pleading if any, by the parties are primarily germane.”*

The High Court’s directive for a fresh hearing underlines the significance of adhering to procedural propriety and the careful analysis of pleadings in judicial decisions. This case is now poised for a detailed re-examination at the trial court level, with implications for the understanding of lease agreements and the application of Thika Tenancy in property disputes.

Date of Decision:14-03-2024

SHREE ISWAR SATYANARAYANJI AND OTHERS  Vs. SARAD KUMAR

Download Judgment

Share: