Hrishikesh Banerji, J. - (1.) The following are the substantial questions of law involved in this Second Appeal which arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court viz. the Assistant District Judge, Bankura whereby the trial Court's Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Bankura, was confirmed : 1. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in applying the provisions of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act to the facts of the present case on a total misreading of the plaint case and misappreciation of the evidence-on-record. 2. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in not appreciating the effect of express surrender of.his tenancy by proforma defendant No. 12 in favour of the plaintiff and in not holding that on the basis of such surrender the other defendants in the suit became nothing but trespassers liable to be evicted from the suit premises following the express surrender as mentioned above. 3. Whether the Court of appeal below has confused himself in holding the alleged Mess run by the defendants by a fluctuating body being an unincorporated association, could be entitled to the protection of law on the basis of some observations made by the First Appellate Court upon a total misconsideration of the facts and circumstances of the case which rendered the Judgment of the First Appellate Court erroneous and liable to be set aside.
(2.) The plaintiff/appellant's case in this suit is that he let out the entire suit premises, a residential building, located in Mahalla Gopinathpur within Bankura Municipality to pro-defendant No. 12, Gour Kishore Dutta, an Executive Engineer of Kangsabatj Project at Bankura as a monthly tenant according to English Calendar month. The monthly rent was Rs. 100/- when the suit was instituted. For his convenience pro-defendant No. 12, accommodated certain staff of his Office in the said premises who lived there as his licensees. Pro-defendant No. 12 was transferred from Bankura and when the present suit was filed he was posted to Burdwan. Rent in respect of the suit premises was paid to the plaintiff/appellant on behalf of the pro-defendant No. 12.
(3.) By his letter dated 12.11.1976 (Ext. 1) the plaintiff asked the.pro- defendant No. 12 to explain why vacant possession had not been delivered. In reply pro-defendant No. 12 wrote to the plaintiff that there was a technical mistake in not handing over the possession of the premises to the plaintiff/landlord and that the persons occupying the house should be treated as unauthorised occupants. Pro-defendant No. 12 also requested the plaintiff to take possession on or before 1.12.1976 forwarding a copy of the said letter to the superintending Engineer, Kangsabati Project, Bankura who in turn directed his staff living there including the defendant No. 1, Ashim Krishna Das to vacate on 30.11.1976 by his letter dated 15.11.1976 (Ext. 2).;