Padma Khastgir, J. - (1.) This suit has been filed by the Corporation of Calcutta for a decree for possession of the premises in suit being No. 5A, Chowringhee Place, Calcutta by evicting the defendant therefrom and also for a decree for mesne profits, interest, cost and other incidental reliefs.
(2.) The plaintiff is the owner of the land and building comprising in the premises No. 5A, Chowringhee Place, Calcutta. The defendant under an agreement with the plaintiff carried on business of exhibiting Cinematographic Films at the said premises under the name and style of "Minerva Cinema" prior to 31st January, 1974. The defendant wanted a fresh lease of the said premises from the plaintiff and in cons deration of such request of the defendant, the plaintiff by letter dated 24ih January, 1974 signed by Officiating Chief Valuer and Surveyor of the plaintiff offered to the defendant a fresh lease of the said premises for a term of 5 years from the 1st February, 1974 on inter alia the following terms and conditions i.e. (a) that the defendant will have to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 5500/-. (b) That defendant will pay Rs. 33000/- equivalent to six months monthly rent. (c) The defendant would be responsible for the fire Insurance of the building. (d) The defendant would abide by other terms and conditions of the lease which may be stipulated by the Chief Law Officer in the instrument of lease to be executed by the parties. The defendant by letter dated 25th January and by telegram dated 24th January, 1974 agreed to accept the offer contained in the said letter of the plaintiff. In view off such acceptance the plaintiff allowed the defendant to continue in possession and carry on the said business subject to execution of the lease incorporating the terms acceptable by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also received a sum of Rs. 33000/- in terms of the said agreement on 24th January 1974. On 28th of March, 1974 the Chief Law Officer of the plaintiff forwarded to the defendant a draft agreement for approval in order that the same may be engrossed finally and executed by and between the parties and registered in accordance with the appropriate provision of law. But the defendant instead of approving the same sent back under a covering letter dated 26th May, 1974, the said draft lease with extensive alterations in the terms and conditions given by the plaintiff which completely charged the basic terms, which were not acceptable to the plaintiff.
(3.) Under the circumstances the plaintiff contended that there has been no valid lease by and between the parties, hence the defendant has no right to remain in possession of the property in the alternative it is the plaintiff's case that although rents have been accepted by the plaintiff and by reasons of that it is contended by the defendant that a monthly tenancy has been created or came into existence in favour of the defendant, then in that event the plaintiff has terminated the said tenancy by serving a notice dated May 10, 1978 whereby the Chief Law Officer on behalf of the plaintiff has called upon the defendant, to quit and vacate the said premises and to deliver unto the plaintiff vacant and peaceful possession after expiry of period of notice as mentioned in the letter. The defendant received the said notice on May, 1978 in its Calcutta Office and on May 23, 1978 at id Bombay Office.;