INDIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY Vs. BRIJ MOHAN DALMIYA
LAWS(CAL)-1989-6-58
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 09,1989

INDIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY Appellant
VERSUS
Brij Mohan Dalmiya Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NISHIT KUMAR BISWAS V. BROCHO AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
KARAM CHAND V. BANWARILA [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH V. MEHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR DAS VS. JAGDISH CHANDRA DEO DHABAL DEB [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND PRASAD CHATURVEDI VS. HARI DUTT SHASTRI [REFERRED TO]
TECHNICIANS STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. LILA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
BISWABANI PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SANTOSH KUMAR DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL AGARWALA VS. BHAGIRATHI GORE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sachi Kanta Hazari, J. - (1.)This is a second appeal by the defendant against the judgment dated 1.7.85 of an Additional District Judge of Alipore in Title Appeal No. 818 of 1984 by which the learned Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.8.84 of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court. Alipore, in an Ejectment Suit being T. S. No. 121 of 1981.
(2.)The relevant facts in brief are as follows:-
The premises No. 11B, Ballygunge Circular Road within the city of Calcutta belonged to the plaintiffs father, Gajananda,and the plaintiffs grand-mother, Indramoni (mothers mother). Those two owners by a registered lease deed dated 28.5.60 let out to the defendant, India steamship company Ltd., the first floor flat of the premises on certain terms and conditions, including payment of rents, fora period of 21 years effective from 1.6.60. This period of 21 years calculated from 1.6.60 expired on 31..5.81.

(3.)In 1963, i. e., during the subsistency of the lease, a Title Suit being T. S. No. 485 of 1963 in the Court of the Munsif at Alipore was brought by the defendant, lessee, against the lessor. That suit was, however, disposed of on the basis of a joint petition of compromise filed by the parties. In terms of the compromise petition, the defendant company, which was a lessee of the first floor flat of the premises No. 11B, Ballygunge Circular Road under the registered lease deed, was to shift to the second floor flat of the same building with some extra facilities. Monthly rent for a fees months was also varied and enhanced by the compromise petition. It was specifically mentioned in the compromise petition that all other terms and conditions as mentioned in the registered lease deed would be binding on the parties. But the compromise petition and/or the compromise decree was no, however, registered under the Registration Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.