Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a suit by Messrs. Talbot & Co., a registered firm, for the recovery of possession of the premises No. 113, Park Street, Calcutta. There is also a claim for mesne profits.

2. Messrs. Talbot & Co. were appointed Receivers of the said premises by order of Lort-Williams J. in Suit No. 991 of 1929, 'Sm. Provabati Debi v. J. C. Galstaun and Ors.' That order was made on 12-5-1930. By a further order made in that suit by Ameen Ali J. on 12-1-1938 the plaintiffs as Receivers were given liberty to grant lease for 10 years of the said premises to Messrs. Ganeshdas Ramgopal. The present defendants are carrying on business under the name and style of Ganeshdas Ramgopal at 1, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. Originally there were 3 defendants one of whom - Nawal Kishore Halwasiya - died pending the suit and the necessary amendment was duly made bringing on the record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. In pursuance of the leave granted by this Court the plaintiffs on 4-3-1939, granted a lease of the said premises 113, Park Street to defendant Hari Charan Halwasiya, the deceased defendant Nawal Ki-shore Halwasiya and defendant Detai Prosad Halwasiya for the period of 10 years commencing from 16-10-1937. By Clause 1 (8) of the said lease it was provided as follows :

6. Mr. Sunil C. Talukdar counsel for the defendants raised the following issues:

"1. Was the subletting in breach of the covenants in the lease? 1952 Gal./T & 8

2. If so, has it been waived in the manner set out in sub-paras (a) and (b) of Para. 5 of the written statement?

3. Is the notice of determination of lease by forfeiture valid and/or sufficient in law?

4. Are the plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60/- per diem as alleged or at all?"

Mr. Meyer learned counsel for the plaintiffs accepted those issues. The onus being upon the defendants in the first three issues the defendants called evidence first. On behalf of the defendants Gosto Behari Biswas, the Manager and Accountant of the defendants, Jyotsna Kumar Mitter, Secretary to the Managing Director of Poddar Automobiles, Hari Prasad Bhattacharyya, an Accountant of Walford Co., and defendant Hari Charan Halwasiya have been examined. On behalf of the plaintiffs S. A. Basil, the senior partner of Messrs. Talbot & ' Co. and John Simon Gregory, an Employee of the plaintiffs have been examined. Apart from the oral evidence of the witnesses there is an admitted brief of documents and correspondence which has been marked by consent as Ex. 'A' in this suit.

7. 'Issue No. 1' : Subletting to Ganeshdas Ramgopal is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that there is no particular permission in writing given by the plaintiffs to the defendants to sublet the said premises to Poddar Automobiles. The written statement of the defendants admits the subletting and states that the said subletting to Poddar Automobiles was made on 3-12-1946. Gosto Behary Biswas has also said so in his evidence.

8. What has been urged before me by the learned counsel for the defendants is that the letter dated 2-9-1940 written by the plaintiffs to Ganeshdas Ramgopal is a general permission in writing given to the defendants to sublet to anybody the defendants liked. On that basis it is argued that even if there was subletting it was not in breach of the covenant of the lease but in compliance with C. 1 (8) of the Lease 1 have quoted above, the letter of 2-9-1940 being the sanction of the landlords in writing. It is a question of construction of the letter dated 2-9-1940. In my opinion the letter of 2-9-1940 is not such a general permission as the defendants contend. The language of the letter makes it quite clear that it was a specific permission to let out a portion of the premises to the particular party, viz., Messrs. Walford Transport Ltd. That letter refers to a letter of 30-8-1940. written by defendant Hari Charan Halwasiya for Ganeshdas Ramgopal to the plaintiffs. That letter of 30-8-1940 specifically asks for sanction to sublet a portion of the said premises to Walford Transport Ltd. I read the letter of 2-9-1940 as an answer to the letter of 30-8-1940. The evidence of Mr. Basil the senior partner of the plaintiffs on the facts leaves no room for doubt. In my judgment, therefore, the proper construction of the letter of 2-9-1940 is that it is a special permit given to Walfords and to none else. As there is nothing else in writing which can be said to permit subletting to Poddar Automobiles I have come to the conclusion that the subletting to Poddar Automobiles by the defendants is a breach of the covenants contained in Clause 1 (8) of the Lease.