Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The Company will continue to be the tenant of the portions shown as Lot C and Lot C-1 in the annexed plan which fall with the ownership of Shri Madan Mohan Burman with effect from the date of this Award and it will continue to pay the rent now being paid or is payable to Madan Mohan Burman by the Company in respect of the said portions shown as Lot C and Lot C-1 in the annexed plan. The consent of Madan Mohan Burman for the Company assigning its tenancy rights in respect of the portions Lot A and Lot A-1 and Lot B and Lot B-1 as aforesaid and for its continuing as the tenant in respect of tha said portions Lot C and Lot C-1 under the said Madan Mohan Burman has been filed before me and I am satisfied that he is agreeable to such assignment and transfer in favour of Krishna Kanta Paul and Mrinal Kanti Paul and Malay Kumar Paul jointly and to the Company continuing to be the tenant in respect of the said portions being Lot C and Lot C-1 at the rent which is now being paid or is payable by the Company to Madan Mohan Burman for the said portions being Lot C and Lot C-1 respectively.

13. On such assignment and transfer of the said equity shares held by Krishna Kanta Paul, Mrinal Kanti Paul and Malay Kumar Paul in the Company in favour of Tapan Kumar Paul, they shall have no claim against each other or against Tapan Kumar Paul or Ramani Kanta Paul nor shall Tapan Kumar Paul or Ramani Kanta Paul have any claim against Krishna Kanta Paul, Mrinal Kanti Paul or Malay Kumar Paul thereafter.

14. If Krishna Kanta Paul intends to transfer, sell or assign the tenancy rights in respect of Lots A and A-1 shown in the annexed plan to any third party he shall give the first option to purchase or to take transfer or assignment of the said tenancy right to Tapan Kumar Paul who shall be entitled to purchase or take the transfer or assignment of the said tenancy rights at which it is proved that Krishna Kanta Paul was able to sell or assign the tenancy right of the said portion of Lot A and Lot A-1 to the said third party.

15. If Mrinal Kanti Paul and Malay Kumar Paul intend to transfer, sell or assign the tenancy rights in respect of Lots B and B-1 shown in the annexed plan to any third party they shall give the first option to purchase or to take --transfer or assignment of the said tenancy rights to Tapan Kumar Paul who shall be entitled to purchase or take transfer or assignment of the said tenancy rights at which it is proved that Mrinal Kanti Paul and Malay Kumar Paul were able to sell or assign the tenancy right of the said portion of B , and Lot B-1 to the said third party.

10. The next ground upon which good deal of stress was laid in this matter was that the arbitrator has sought to divide the tenancy or assign the tenancy rights without the consent of the landlord. In this connection it is important to bear in mind that there were different landlords in respect of the premises which were the main assets of the company namely, the tenancy in premises Nos. 233 and 213 (B) Mahatma Gandhi Road, and the other adjoining premises. The premises in question belonged to the Burman brothers or members of the Burman family and there was evidence that those brothers and co-sharers of the Burman family had shared amongst themselves the rents payable in respect of the different portions of the premises which comprised the tenancy rights of the company. The arbitrator has divided in essence the said tenancy rights of the different allottees in the manner he has done. Now, it was contended that in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1956 assignment or subletting or transfer of tenancy require the consent in writing of the landlords. My attention was drawn to Section 13(1) of the said Act, to Section 14, Section 17 and to Section 30(3) of the Act, and it was contended that from the evidence on record there was no consent of the landlord in writing io the sub-division or assigning as the arbitrator has purported to do and if the landlords refuse to accept such sub-divisions and the different allottees as their tenants the whole award would fail and would become unworkable. It appears that this point had been specifically argued before the arbitrator and a letter dated 9th of September, 1977 written by three of the landlords was filed before the arbitrator. The said letter was as follows:--