Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

Latest Legal News