S.B. Majmudar, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is being disposed of by this judgment. This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the decision rendered by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta confirming decree for possession passed against the appellant -defendant by the learned Judge, 7th Court of City Civil at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1481 of 1986. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant -defendant, it is necessary to note a few relevant background facts. FACTUAL MATRIX:
(3.) THE respondent -plaintiff is the owner of suit premises consisting of ground floor of a building situated at Marquis Street, Calcutta. The said premises were rented to the appellant -defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2045 by a registered lease dated 16.03.1964. This lease was for a period of 21 years commencing from 16.03.1964 and ending on 15.03.1985. On the expiry of the said period, the respondent -plaintiff D alleging to be a registered partnership firm, filed the aforesaid suit praying for a decree for possession as well as damages @ Rs. 200 per day for illegal occupation of the premises by the appellant -defendant. The defence of the appellant -defendant was that after the expiry of the lease period, it had continued to be a tenant by acceptance of rent by the defendant -landlord and hence it had become a tenant by holding over Under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Property Act'). Further defence was taken by the appellant -defendant by way of a separate application seeking dismissal of the suit under Order 7 Rule II(d) of CPC (for short 'CPC') on the ground that the suit for possession as filed by the plaintiff -respondent, which was an unregistered partnership firm, was not maintainable.;