SANKAR LAL NARAYAN PROSAD Vs. SATYA NARAYAN BERLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the appellant challenges a decree for eviction passed against them by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in a suit filed by the respondents. The case of the plaintiff/respondents, as made out in the plaint, is as follows : Under a registered deed of lease dated February 18, 1956 the defendant/appellant became a tenant in respect of a flat on the first floor or premises No. 208 Jamunalal Bazaz Street, Calcutta for a period of sixteen years commencing from 1st Magh Sudi 2012 S.Y. corresponding to 12-2-56 under M/s. Samdeo Gopiram, a registered partnership firm at a monthly rental of Rs. 301/5/(Rs. 301.31) according to Hindi Sambat which was subsequently increased to Rs. 351.31 due to enhancement of municipal taxes. During the subsistence of the lease the plaintiffs purchased the entire premises No. 208, Jamunalal Bazaz Street, Calcutta by an indenture of conveyance dated 9-9-1969 and became absolute owner thereof. By virtue of the said purchase the defendant became a lessee under the plaintiffs and there was necessary attornment. By efflux of time the lease expired on 1st Magh Sudi 2028 S.Y. but in spite of such expiry, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. The defendant also failed and neglected to pay the rent from Pous 2028 S.Y. Apart from their claim to recover possession on expiry of the lease the plaintiffs also averred that they required the suit premises for their own use and occupation. By way of abundant caution the plaintiffs therefore sent a notice through their learned Advocate requiring the defendant to quit and vacate the suit premises but in spite of receipt of the same they did not vacate the premises. Hence the suit for eviction and for khas possession.

(2.) In their written statement the defendant admitted that they entered into a lease with the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 301/5/annas inclusive of tax but they denied that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 351.31 P. due to enhancement of taxes. According to them sometime after execution and registration of the written lease the parties gave a go-by to the same and the defendant became a monthly tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs at a monthly rent of Rs. 351/5/- annas under a fresh agreement. They denied that they became lessees under the plaintiffs but admitted that the plaintiffs were the landlords and that they paid rent to the plaintiffs against receipts. It is the further case of the defendant that even if it was conceded that there was a written lease as alleged they were holding over the property after expiry thereof. They denied the allegations of non-payment of rent and contended that as the plaintiffs refused to accept the rents when tendered they had been regularly depositing the rent in the Office of the Rent Controller.

(3.) In deciding the suit in favour of the plaintiffs the learned trial Judge held that the relations between the parties was governed by the registered deed of lease which was for a term of 16 years and the defendant's contention that the parties entered into a fresh agreement thereafter was not at all substantiated.