R. C. Lahoti, C. J. I - (1.) -In respect of a property situated in the metropolitan city of Calcutta, a lease of immovable property for a fixed term commencing 1-4-1964 and expiring on 24-6-1984 evidenced by a registered deed of lease dated 17-7-1964, came into existence. The lessee entered into possession of the leased premises on 1-4-1964. On 26-9-1983, the lessor served a notice on the lessee informing the lessee that the tenancy was to expire on 24-6-1984 and, therefore, on that day the lessee must deliver vacant possession of the demised premises to the lessor. On 8-11-1983, the lessee sent a reply taking a firm stand that he would not vacate the demised premises in terms of the lease deed and the request contained in the communication dated 8-11-1983. The lessee also disputed the entitlement of the lessor to demand possession from the lessee on a plea that the title of the lessor to claim possession had itself come to an end on account of eviction by a paramount title-holder. On 16-4-1984, the present suit was filed by the lessor against the lessee seeking the following reliefs :-"a) a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to be delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff on the expiry of the term of the said lease dated July 17, 1964, i.e. on the expiry of June 24, 1984. b) perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its agents and servants from subletting, assigning or parting with possession of the said premises or any party thereof during the said term of the said lease and from giving possession of the said premises or any part thereof to any person other than the plaintiff on the expiry of the said lease. c) a decree for vacant possession of the said premises on the expiry of the term of the said lease as aforesaid. d) a decree for Rs.30,000/- for damages or alternatively, an enquiry into damages and a decree for such as may be found due to the plaintiff. e) Receiver; f) Costs; g) further and other reliefs."
(2.) The suit was filed twelve weeks before the date on which the lease was to expire by efflux of time within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The written statement was filed on 24-8-1994. One of the pleas taken in the written statement was that the suit was premature and hence was not maintainable.
(3.) In January 1985, the lessor-plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed by the order dated 27-2-1985. The plaintiff introduced in the plaint further averments in support of his entitlement to possession over the leased premises. To the reliefs which he had sought for earlier, the following relief was further added : "Mesne profits at Rs.595/- per diem or at such other rate as to this Honble Court may seem fit and proper from 25th June, 1984, until vacant and peaceful possession of the said demised premises is given to the plaintiff by the defendant;" ;