Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta)

Order Date: 02 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Budge Budge Company Limited; Respondents – Calcutta Gujrati Education Society and another.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Appeal (APD 04 of 2025) against the judgment and decree dated 13 December 2024 passed in CS No. 317 of 2023, which ordered eviction of the appellant and payment of mesne profits to the respondents.
  • Background:
  • Original lease agreement dated 29 October 1973 created a tenancy determinable only on rent default.
  • Notice of termination issued on 18 February 1992 under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
  • Ejectment Suit No. 419 of 1992 was dismissed as withdrawn on 8 April 2003, later set aside on 7 July 2004, and finally withdrawn on 29 April 2006.
  • A second suit (CS No. 317 of 2003) was filed on 9 December 2003 after a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dated 5 July 2003.
  • The appellant contended that there was no rent default until 31 August 2003, that the earlier notice had already terminated the tenancy, and that the second suit was barred by limitation and jurisdictional issues under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
  • The respondents argued that the suit was maintainable, that the notice of 5 July 2003 was valid, that acceptance of rent after the notice did not constitute a waiver, and that the High Court had pecuniary jurisdiction.
  • Key Legal Provisions Discussed: Sections 106, 107, 110, 111, 113, 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Sections 13(6) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; Section 45 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997; Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Suits Valuation Act; West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970; relevant Supreme Court precedents (Sneh Lata Goel, Kerala State Electricity Board, Calcutta Credit Corp. Ltd., C. Albert Morris, etc.).
  • Issues Framed by Trial Court (9 Issues): Maintainability, cause of action, validity of notice, termination of tenancy, waiver by acceptance of rent, liability for eviction, entitlement to decree, entitlement to mesne profit, other reliefs.
  • Findings of Trial Court:
  • Acceptance of rent after the 5 July 2003 notice amounted to a waiver of the earlier 1992 notice, creating a fresh tenancy governed by Section 106/111 of the Transfer of Property Act.
  • The suit was based on a new cause of action and was not barred by Order XXIII Rule 1.
  • The High Court had pecuniary jurisdiction; additional court fees were duly paid.
  • Mere acceptance of rent does not, by itself, waive a notice unless intention is shown; evidence did not demonstrate such intention.
  • The tenancy was determinable by the 5 July 2003 notice; the appellant remained in possession after that date, becoming a trespasser.
  • Appellate Court Reasoning:
  • Reaffirmed that the lease was determinable only on rent default; the appellant had not defaulted before the 5 July 2003 notice.
  • Held that the doctrine of holding over under Section 116 applied, creating a month‑to‑month tenancy after the notice, which was validly served.
  • Concluded that acceptance of rent after the notice did not constitute a waiver under Section 113 because no intention to treat the lease as subsisting was evidenced.
  • Determined that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, being enacted after the suit’s institution, could not be applied retrospectively to oust the civil court’s jurisdiction.
  • Found no procedural objection to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction was raised at the trial stage; therefore, the appellate court could not entertain such objections.
  • Cited Supreme Court pronouncements confirming that waiver requires clear intention, which was absent.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal (APD 04 of 2025) is dismissed.
  • The impugned judgment and decree dated 13 December 2024 are affirmed.
  • The appellant must vacate the suit premises and pay the mesne profits as ordered.
  • All connected applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Topics: Eviction, Tenancy Law, Commercial Courts Act