Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

a) The suit was misconceived, not maintainable and was instituted in gross suppression and misrepresentation of the facts.

b) The plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant No. 1 nor did the plaint disclose any cause of action. The suit was barred by principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence and also barred by law of limitation.

c) Prabhat Chandra De, a solicitor was the tenant of room No. 23 on the third floor of the said premises No. 1B, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta -1. The said Prabhat Chandra De was the sole proprietor of a solicitor firm by the name and style of P C De & Company and by a deed of partnership dated May 1, 1966, Prasanta Kumar De, the fourth son of Prabhat Chandra De became a partner of the said P.C. De & Co. and according to the terms of partnership deed, tenancy of the room No. 23 of premises No. 1B, Old Post Office Street would be transferred to the firm's name and the firm should pay rent of the said room, the bills for electricity and telephone standing in the name of Prabhat Chandra De. It was further stipulated in the deed that the retirement or death of a partner should not dissolve the firm but the continuing or surviving partner would be at liberty to continue the business in the name of the firm as the sole proprietor thereof. On such retirement or death, all the assets of the firm including unrealised bills, books, furniture and the said tenancy should devolve on the continuing partner who should become the absolute owner thereof.

18. They further contend that it is for the Emerald Company Limited, the admitted owner of the building, to file appropriate suit for eviction of the appellants. They further point out that even when the suit was filed, the alleged second lease executed by Emerald Company, the admitted owner, had come to an end by efflux of time and therefore, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 347 of 1997 had no right to file any suit in its own name after the expiry of such period.

19. So far the dismissal of Title Suit No. 3099 of 1996 is concerned it is contended by the learned advocate for the appellants that the Khaitan Consultant Limited having taken specific plea in the written statement of Title Suit No. 3099 of 1996 that original tenancy in respect of the property was held by a partnership firm, namely, P.C. De & Company and on the death of the senior partner of the said firm, the tenancy devolved upon Prasanta Kumar De, the surviving partner, and such plea having been found to be wrong, the learned Trial Judge ought to have held that on the death of Prabhat Chandra De, the admitted tenant of the property, the tenancy devolved upon his all heirs and legal representatives and thus, the tenancy could not be changed in the name of Prasanta Kumar De on the basis of partnership deed.