Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies 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