R.Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This second appeal has been directed against the judgment and the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Burdwan in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1956 affirming substantially with a minor modification the decision dated 30th July, 1956, passed by Sri B. C. Das Gupta, Munsif, 1st Court, Asansol, in Title Suit No. 201 of 1953. The appellants are Shambhunath Pal and others, the heirs and legal representatives of one Chandrabinode Pal, who was the defendant in the original suit. The plaintiff-respondent is the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
(2.) In short, the case of the Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., hereafter referred to as the Company, was that Chandrabinode Pal took a monthly lease of the suit land by executing a deed at a monthly rental of Rs. 7/8/- according to English calendar month for a period of one year starting from the 1st of January, 1939 till the end of the English calendar year 1939. It was stipulated in that deed amongst other things that Chandrabinode would not be entitled to make any structure except kutcha one for the purpose of a shop. After the expiry of the period of lease for a year, Chandrabinode held over the tenancy and continued possession as a monthly tenant in terms of the lease executed previously by him. The plaintiff, on the allegation for the improvement of the Burnpur Market, wanted to take possession of the suit land and therefore, served a notice to quit upon Chandrabinode with the expiry of the month of December, 1950. In the plaint the plaintiff Company was ready and willing to pay reasonable compensation to the defendant. The plaintiff wanted a decree for eviction amongst other reliefs.
(3.) To be brief, the case of the defendant Chandrabinode was that he did not execute any lease as mentioned by the plaintiff and that he was a tenant under the plaintiff with all rights to make buildings on the land and enjoy the land as he wished. The defendant further stated that with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff he made pucca structures on the suit land and as such, he could not be evicted according to the provisions of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act.;