KRISHNA KUMAR KHEMKA versus GRINDLAYS BANK P.L:C AND ORS.

KRISHNA KUMAR KHEMKA versus GRINDLAYS BANK P.L:C AND ORS.

Surrender of part of the tenancy by Grindlays Bank did not create a new tenancy—the existing monthly tenancy continued, and thus, creation of tenancy for flats 3 and 4 was not a breach of the court's injunction. However, the Receiver's act of granting a new tenancy to Tata Finlay Ltd. for flats 1 and 2, after the injunction order prohibiting transfer or creation of new tenancies, was void and did not entitle Tatas to protection as tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act; therefore, Tatas were liable to be evicted, but Grindlays Bank was entitled to continue as monthly tenant with statutory protection.

Parties
Appellant: Krishna Kumar Khemka; Respondent No. 1: Grindlays Bank P.L.C.; Respondent No. 2: Tata Finlay Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 May 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Calcutta High Court Division Bench Judgment in Suit No. 2479 of 1967
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as against respondent No. 1 (Grindlays Bank) and allowed as against respondent No. 2 (Tata Finlay Ltd.).
Legal Topics
Receiver's Powers, Transfer of Property, Lease and Tenancy, Injunctions, Surrender of Tenancy
Property Law Tenancy Law Civil Procedure Receiver's Powers Transfer of Property Lease and Tenancy Injunctions Surrender of Tenancy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishna Kumar Khemka

Appellant

Grindlays Bank P.L.C.

Respondent No. 1

Tata Finlay Ltd.

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Calcutta High Court Division Bench Judgment in Suit No. 2479 of 1967

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Receiver of immovable property appointed by a court can lawfully lease property for a term exceeding three years without the court's express permission under Chapter 21 Rule 5(a) of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the surrender of part of a tenancy amounts to an implied surrender or creation of a new tenancy.
  3. 3 Whether a Receiver's creation of a lease in violation of a court injunction is void and whether such a tenant is entitled to protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Surrender of part of the tenancy by Grindlays Bank did not create a new tenancy—the existing monthly tenancy continued, and thus, creation of tenancy for flats 3 and 4 was not a breach of the court's injunction. However, the Receiver's act of granting a new tenancy to Tata Finlay Ltd. for flats 1 and 2, after the injunction order prohibiting transfer or creation of new tenancies, was void and did not entitle Tatas to protection as tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act; therefore, Tatas were liable to be evicted, but Grindlays Bank was entitled to continue as monthly tenant with statutory protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as against respondent No. 1 (Grindlays Bank) and allowed as against respondent No. 2 (Tata Finlay Ltd.).

Orders

  • Tata Finlay Ltd.'s tenancy declared invalid and Tatas are liable to be evicted; no protection available under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
  • No interference with the tenancy of Grindlays Bank; their status as monthly tenant is affirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.