SATYA BRATA SINHA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 29.4.1985 passed by Sri K.D. Banerjee, Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1323 of 1981 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed.
(2.) THE fact of the matter is not in dispute. The premises in question being premises No. 45, Dharmatala Street was demised in favour of the appellant herein by the plaintiff's father for a term of 21 years with effect from 1st day of July, 1960. The monthly rent in respect of the said demised premises was Rs. 1,900/-. The said lease having come to end by efflux of time, the aforementioned suit was filed. The learned trial Judge upon taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues : "1. Is the suit bad for defect of parties ? 2. Is the tenancy in question governed by the Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 or is it guided by the Transfer of Property Act ? 3. Is there their relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? 4. Has the tenancy of the defendant been validly terminated ? 5. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property by evicting the defendant therefrom ? 6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for an amount of Rs. 7,634.36 and 1/5th share of the Municipal Taxes as prayed for ? 7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for mesne profits as prayed for ? 8. To what relief, it any, are the plaintiffs entitled ?"
(3.) ONE of the questions which was raised was as to whether the tenancy had been validly terminated. Issue No. 4 which was framed in that regard was held against the appellant. So far as the issue No. 2 is concerned, admittedly the tenancy in question having been created for a period of 21 years the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was not applicable and the relationship between the parties was governed by the Transfer of Property Act. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises upon negativing the defence set up by the appellant herein to the effect that Vijay Narayan Shaw gave the Godown Manager of the defendant verbal assurance to renew the lease is absolutely frivolous and unbelievable. The learned trial Judge held that the lease in question stands determined and terminated on the expiry of 1.7.1981.;