FERRAZZINI'S BAKERY Vs. AMITAVA MITTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arose out of judgment and decree dated 18.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Appeal No. 164 of 2005 confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 9th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 68 of 1989.

(2.) In the background of this appeal the fact in a nutshell is that the original suit was for Khas possession and eviction of lessee and mesne profit on forfeiture of lease. On the basis of the registered deed of lease dated 15.7.64, the defendants were inducted in the suit premises as lessee for 21 years commencing from 15.7.64 at a fixed rental of Rs. 1600/- only p.m. payable according to English Calendar Month with usual covenants restricting creation of sub-tenancy not more than 50% lease hold premises causing damage, causing conversion etc. Under the said lease it was also agreed that the lease at the option of the lessee would be renewed for a period of 5 years more after the expiry of originally agreed period of 21 years provided the lessee exercising their such option six months before the targeted date of expiry of lease and further in the event of such renewal the rate of rent would be enhanced to Rs. 1760/- only p.m. It was also stated that the lessee/defendant having exercising such option continued to remain in their original possession of the suit property upon paying a sum of Rs. 1760/- p.m. only as agreed rent and during the continuance or possession, the lessee made breach of covenants restricting creation of sub-tenancy, causing damage by raising massive new construction and using the premises for residential purpose, although, lease was granted for the business purpose.

(3.) The lessor terminated the lease and filed the suit in 1989 for eviction of the lessee, recovery of the possession etc. During pendency of the suit the optional period of lease of 5 years having elapsed on 31.7.90, the plaintiffs on amendment of the plaint inserted the further ground of efflux of time stipulated in the lease.