- (1.) THIS is a suit for ejectment and for mesne profits briefly on thus case pleaded in the plaint : On the basis of negotiations carried on between the plaintiff and the defendant's representative the defendant entered into occupation of the suit premises on december 1, 1956 on condition that the president of India, by a duly authorised officer, would execute a lease for a minimum period of 3 years preferably for a period of 5 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 37. 50 P. per 100 Sq. ft, which became Rs. 2986. 12 P. on calculation, out no lease was executed and, therefore the defendant did not become a tenant of the suit premises. By a letter dated July 17, 1967, the defendant was asked to make over its possession to the plaintiff on the expiry of the month of August, 1967 and yet the defendant continues in wrongful occupation of the suit premises.
(2.) THE main defence is that though no lease could be executed due to the wrongful attitude of the plaintiff and yet the defendant became a monthly tenant by payment of rents to the plaintiff who has accepted those rents and has assented to the defendant's possession and therefore the defendant is entitled to protection from eviction under the provisions cf the West bengal Remises Tenancy Act, 1956. The following issues were settled by consent of the parties : (i) Was the defendant let into possession of the suit premises on the basis of any negotiation as alleged in paragraph 1 of the plaint or on the basis of the letters mentioned in paragraph 2 of the written Statement ? (ii) Is the alleged contract of tenancy pleaded in the plaint hit by article 299 of the Constitution ? (iii) Is the notice dated 12th July 1967, mentioned in paragraph 6 of the plaint valid? (iv) Is the notice under section 80 of the Code valid? (v) (a) Is the defendant a tenant under the plaintiff ? (b) If so, is the defendant entitled to protection from eviction under the west Bengal Promises Tenancy Act, 1956 as alleged in paragraph 7 of the written Statement ? (vi) Is the plaintiffs alleged claim barred by estoppel or acquiescence as alleged in paragraphs 8 (a) and 8 (c) of the Written Statement ? (vii) (a) Did the plaintiff make any representation to the defendant that the defendant has been inducted as tenant as alleged in the Written statement ? (b) if so, is the defendant entitled to compel the plaintiff to give effect to it. (viii) To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled ?
(3.) ISSUE No. 2 has been deleted today by consent of the parties as no contract of tenancy has been pleaded in the plaint and Mr. B. C. Dutt, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff, addressed me only on Issues 5 (a), (b)and 8.;