Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Srimati Meghala Biswas vs The Union Of India & Ors on 10 August, 2010
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1 In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas W.P. No. 10435 (W) of 2010 Srimati Meghala Biswas v.
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Abhijit Chakraborty, advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudip Pal Chowdhury, advocate, for the Bank.
Heard on: August 10, 2010.
Judgment on: August 10, 2010.
The Court: The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated May 12, 2010 is seeking the following principal relief:
" (a) A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Gobardanga Branch, P.O. Gobardanga, District 24-Parganas(North) to register the Lease Agreement dated 24.4.2009 which is between the petitioner and the State Bank of India, Gobardanga Branch, P.O. Gobardanga, District 24-Parganas(North) and for a period of five years with options for renewal for the purpose of running the Branch of State Ba-nk of India at Gobardanga, P.O. Gobardanga, District 24-Parganas(North) in the petitioner's premises;"
The petitioner claims that she leased out a property to the State Bank of India under an agreement dated April 24, 2009 (at p.17) for a period of ten years. Her allegation is that though the Bank was under an obligation to register the document creating the lease, it has failed and neglected to do so.
2Counsel submits that in view of the provisions of s.107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the Bank was under a statutory obligation to register the document. His argument is that since the petitioner made the property fully ready for leasing it out to the Bank, now the Bank cannot surrender the tenancy and leave the premises before expiration of the term of the lease. According to him the petitioner is entitled to the remedy under art. 226.
I am unable to accept the arguments. The transaction through which the petitioner created the tenancy in question is a pure private law transaction under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is wrong to say that in view of the provisions of s.107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the Bank was under a statutory obligation to register the document creating the lease.
The consequences of the failure to register the document cannot be avoided by the parties, if the document requiring registration was not registered. Writ Court is not the appropriate forum to decide what will be the consequences of the failure to register the document. Rights and liabilities of the parties arising out of the failure, if any, are not to be adjudicated by the Writ Court. They are to be adjudicated, if at all, only by the competent Civil Court.
If under the document creating the lease the petitioner has a right to say that the Bank cannot surrender the tenancy before expiration of the term of the lease, then the petitioner's remedy, if any, is before the Civil Court. She is not entitled to approach the High Court under art. 226 seeking an order restraining the Bank from surrendering the tenancy in violation of the terms and conditions of the document creating the lease.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
3sh (Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)