Failure to Issue Renewal Notice Justifies Eviction: Calcutta High Court

Union of India’s Appeal Dismissed Due to Non-Renewal Notice Requirement Under Lease Clause - The Calcutta High Court has affirmed the eviction of the Union of India from premises occupied by the Department of Post, rejecting the appeal against the City Civil Court’s decree. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray, underscores the critical necessity of adhering to lease renewal procedures and the admissibility of certified copies of lease deeds when originals are in the appellant’s custody.

Admissibility of Certified Copy of Lease Deed:

The court addressed the appellant’s challenge to the admission of a certified copy of the lease deed. The bench noted that the appellant, as custodian of the original lease deed, failed to produce it despite no objection during the trial. “When a document is admitted, and its contents are not challenged, the case cannot fail merely due to the non-production of the original,” the court stated. This was crucial since the certified copy was authenticated by the appellant’s officer, negating claims of prejudice or impropriety in its admission.

Renewal of Lease:

The court examined Clause 14 of the lease deed, which mandates written notice by the lessee for renewal. The court found that the Union of India did not issue the required notice to the landlord before the lease expired. Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed, “The process of renewal was to be initiated before the stipulated date of expiry. The absence of such notice from the appellant justified the eviction decree.” The judgment emphasized that the appellant’s contention of non-cooperation from the landlord did not excuse the failure to provide the necessary renewal notice.

Applicability of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997:

The court also deliberated on the applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which the appellant argued should govern the case. However, the court concluded that since the rent exceeded Rs. 10,000 per month, the Act did not apply. “The rent being more than Rs. 10,000/- per month excludes the applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997,” the bench stated, reinforcing the tenant’s status as a tenant at sufferance post-lease expiry.

The court underscored that appellate intervention is justified only when a trial court’s judgment is materially defective. The trial court had meticulously distinguished the cited case laws, which were not satisfactorily refuted by the appellant. “The appellate court cannot alter the judgment of the trial court merely because another view is possible,” the judgment noted. The appellant’s failure to issue a lease renewal notice was a clear violation of the lease agreement, justifying the eviction.

Justice Apurba Sinha Ray remarked, “If there was anything new to bring on record before the trial court, what prevented the appellant from producing the original lease deed, particularly when it was in their custody?”

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to dismiss the Union of India’s appeal highlights the importance of procedural compliance in lease agreements and the credibility of certified copies when originals are unattainable. By affirming the lower court’s decree of eviction, the judgment reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding legal principles in property disputes. This decision is expected to set a significant precedent in similar tenancy and lease renewal cases.

Date of Decision: 20^th June 2024

Union of India represented by Secretary, Department of Post & Ors. V. The Kusum Commercial Co. Ltd.