Shantabai vs Ratanbai on 6 July, 2018
"14. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and after going through the judgment of
the High Court as well as of the trial court, we do
not find any ground for which interference can be
made with the judgment of the High Court. We may
note that it was the case of the respondent before the
High Court that it was protected by the provisions of
the Act and that it could not be evicted only because
as per the agreement, the tenancy was to be occupied
by one of its officers. The appellant, on the other
hand, as noted hereinabove, placed reliance on the
decision of this court in Smt. Juthika Mullick's case
[supra], to put forth the point that the respondent was
bound to vacate the premises after the said officer
had left the premises and relying on Smt.Juthika
Mulick's case [supra] submitted that the lease
agreement was not at all contrary to the provisions
of the Act and that the parties were at liberty to
contract out of the Section delineating the various
grounds for eviction. We may note at this stage that
in that decision, this court had held that although the
tenant was protected under the provisions of Section
13 of the Act and such tenant could be evicted only
for one or more grounds as provided in that Act, the
parties had the freedom to enter into an agreement to
take their case out of the provisions of that Section
i.e. the parties were at liberty to contract out of that
section. Before we deal with the submission of Mr.
Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, on this question, we may look into the
findings arrived at by the High Court on this
question.