Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

From the above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court it is clear that even adverse possession is a possession having attached rights. The rights are in the nature of occupation and in case the landlord wants to vacate it he has to take legal recourse. One reference is also to be made to registered agreement of tenancy dated 11.10.1988, Book No. I, Deed No.11244 for the year 1988 registered with Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata entered into between the then owners and Nisar Ahmed. As per this agreement page 5 para 1.4 clearly mentioned Fateh Ali Shah as tenant of the said premises and assessee has taken the premises on rent from Fateh Ali Shah as sub-tenant. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dipti Kr. Basu Vs. CWT (1976) 105 ITR 450 (Cal) held that unless the context otherwise indicates, the word 'asset' must include property of every description in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed G. H. Arif Vs. CWT (1970) 76 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it is held that the word property is a term of widest material and subject to any limitation which the context may require it signifies every possible interest which a person can clearly hold and enjoys. In the present case, the assessee is having interest in the property i.e. he is in occupation of the property. We find from West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and noted that it does not create any tenancy rather it merely protects the tenant whose tenancy is determined, from eviction if he fulfills certain conditions specified in it. According to this Act, where a tenant has obtained previous consent in writing of the landlord to transfer his right and interests in the tenancy he is entitled to transfer it in view of section 14(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. From the above Act, it is clear that transfer of the rights and interests in the tenancy is not absolutely prohibited and, therefore, it must hold that even whether a tenancy is governed by West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 or otherwise such tenancy is transferable property. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 does not take away the right of the landlord and the tenant to agree to determined or extinguish the tenancy. Even otherwise upon the death of deceased his interest as a tenant from month to month passed on to his heirs and it 7 ITA 1571/K/2011 Bakhtiar Ali Shah. A.Y. 08-09 is settled view of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that the interest of a tenant from month to month holding over possession u/s. 116 of Transfer of Property Act is heritable. This was decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Ramnath Vs. Neta AIR 1962 All 604. The facts in that case was that the lease expired on October 24, 1916 but the tenant continued in possession and in such circumstances Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act he became a tenant from month to month and on his death the right to the monthly tenancy devolved on his heirs. Even Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Anwar Ali AIR 1940 Cal 89 held that a tenancy at will was determined by the death of either the tenant or the landlord but a tenancy from month to month resulting from a tenant holding over u/s. 116 of Transfer of Property Act, which was a right and is transferable and heritable. The facts in the present case, as narrated above, is clearly devolves that Fateh Ali Shah became tenant on the demise of Prince Md. Kamgar Shah, who was the tenant and Fateh Ali Shah was one of the legal heirs. In such circumstances, Baktihar Ali Shah, the assessee has received this amount for extinguishing his right in the above property by way of renouncing occupation in favour of Ideal by way of surrender deed dated 30.07.2007. In such circumstances, the assessee's right in the above such property is a capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the Act and surrender of such right was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, the income earned by assessee on transfer of his right is assessable as capital gains and that has rightly been held by CIT(A). The assessee is eligible for consequential deductions u/s. 54, 54EC of the Act. Hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of revenue's appeal is dismissed.