Narayan Chandra Sil, J. - (1.) This is a suit for vacant possession of the suit premises and mesne profit along with other consequential relief.
(2.) The plaint case in brief is that the plaintiff let out the suit premises being block No. 1C (now numbered as 1F) situate on the first floor of the multi-storeyed building standing at the premises No. 20 British Indian Street, Calcutta (now known as 20B, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta-700 069) measuring about 1423 sq. ft. in carpet area, a little more or less for a period of 21 years commencing from 11th April, 1967 ending on 31st May, 1988 to the defendant known as Kian Gwan Company Calcutta Private Limited. The terms and conditions of the agreement of the said tenancy entered in a registered deed of lease dated 11th November, 1967 which expired by the efflux of time on 31st May, 1988. Prior to the expiry of the said lease the plaintiff by a letter dated 23rd February, 1988 duly called upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises and deliver vacant possession thereof in terms of the said deed of lease. But the defendant failed and neglected to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profit from the defendant @ Rs. 500/- per diem on and from June 1, 1988 and thus a total sum of Rs. 1,29,500/- became due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of mesne profit.
(3.) The defendant/tenant has contested the suit by filing a Written Statement in which all the material allegations are denied and it is inter alia stated that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff did not disclose any cause of action. It is also stated that the plaintiff inducted the defendant by a deed of lease dated 11th November, 1967 as a tenant in respect of the suit premises for a period of 19 years 1 month 20 days commencing from 11th April, 1967 and ending on 31st May, 1988. It is claimed by the defendant that the suit premises is a premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and no notice under Section 13(6) of the said Act had been served upon the defendant before institution of the suit.;