Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal at the instance of the defendants arises out of a suit for declaration of the joint tenancy right in respect of the suit property and also for a decree passed in Title Suit No. 388 of 1960 of the Court of 5th Munsif, Alipore, is void, illegal, collusive, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 from executing the decree passed in Title Suit No. 388 of 1960. The premises No. 83/1, Sambhu Nath Pandit Street and 83/2, Sambhu Nath Pandit Street were leased out to the plaintiff's father, Sri T. N. Banerjee for a period of 20 years with an option of renewal. It is alleged that T. N. Banerjee constructed valuable structure on it and let out to the different persons. During his life-time, the said T. N. Banerjee executed an Will disposing of his certain properties as per direction in the Will and on his death the suit property passed to his legal heir including the plaintiff. The plaintiff very recently came to know that the defendant at the back of her and her co-sharers and without impleading them as party managed to get an ejectment decree in respect of the suit premises describing the present defendant No. 12 as the sole defendant and put the decree into execution in Title Execution No. 36 of 1962.
(2.) The defendant appeared and-contested the suit by filing written statement. It is stated therein that the period of lease expired during the life-time of Sri T. N. Banerjee and he never exercised his option for renewal and the defendant No. 12 remained in the suit property as a trespasser and the ejectment decree was passed against the defendants. In the additional .written statement filed on 18.2. 1970 the defendants denied that T. N. Banerjee exercised his option for renewal which was negatived upto the Hon'ble High Court. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. On appeal, however, the suit was dismissed Hence the present appeal at the instance of the defendants.
(3.) Mr. Shyama Charan Mitter on behalf of the appellants, contended that the lease was entered into by the defendants' predecessor, late T. N. Banerjee for 20 years and the said lease expired on 31st December, 1957. Late T. N. Banerjee did not exercise his option for renewal and died in December, 1957. On the basis of this fact, Mr. Mitter, on behalf of the appellants, contended that after the lease for a term is determined by efflux of time the lessee was a tenant-at-sufferance and such tenancy is not a demisable estate and the person who comes in after the tenant-at-sufferance is a mere trespasser and the owner has the right to take possession as against the trespasser and a claim of a trespasser that he has a possessory right against the whole world but not against rightful owner.;