D.P. Mohapatra, J. - (1.)The appellant Tarak Nath Sha is the landlord of the suit property of which the respondent No.1 M/s. Bhutoria Bros. Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') was the lessee. The lease was for a period of 21 years commencing from 23rd March, 1963. The rent stipulated to be paid by the lessee was Rs. 700/- per month. The suit property was in occupation of Mr. Manmal Bhutoria respondent No.2 herein, who was the Director of the respondent No.1 company. Before expiry of the period of lease the lessee is alleged to have sent the letter dated 18-4-1974 in which it was stated that Manmal Bhutoria had voluntarily resigned as Director of the Company; that the company was no longer in need of the suit premises; and that the landlord was requested to take over possession of the property. From the endorsement made in the letter it appears that a copy was sent to Manmal Bhutoria with a request to negotiate with the landlord.
(2.)After expiry of the period of lease in 1984 the landlord addressed a letter to the company requiring it to handover possession of the suit property to him. In the meantime Manmal Bhutoria had filed a Title Suit No. 240/84 against the landlord seeking a declaration as the tenant of the suit property and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the landlord from disturbing his possession. Since the company failed to deliver possession of the suit property to him the landlord filed the suit, T.S. No. 812/84, against the company and Manmal Bhutoria respondent No.1, seeking recovery of possession of the suit property. The gist of the case of the landlord was that the letter dated 18-4-1974 allegedly addressed by the company to him was never received; and that the acknowledgement card purporting to bear his signature was a fabricated document; he denied the signature on the AD card. According to him the lease executed in favour of the company continued till its expiry by efflux of time and the company was liable to handover vacant possession of the suit property to him which it had failed to comply.
(3.)It was the case of the company and Manmal Bhutoria respondents herein that the lease with the company was terminated by the aforementioned letter; that a fresh tenancy was created by the lessor with Manmal Bhutoria in his personal capacity and in pursuance thereof, he continued to occupy the suit property on monthly rent of Rs. 1100/-. In the circumstances he could not be evicted from the property except in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.