M.M.Dutt, J. - (1.) This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for ejectment.
(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited took a lease of the suit premises by a registered deed of lease dated July 20, 1951 for a term of forty years commencing from July 1, 1951 and ending on June 30, 1991 at a progressive rent starting from the rate of Rs. 800 per month and ending with the rate of Rupees 1,482 per month according to the English Calendar month, from Mr. Basil Aviet Basil, the sole trustee to the estate of the plaintiffs. The defendant agreed not to make any structural alterations or additions in or to the suit premises without the previous consent in writing of the lessors, that is, the plaintiffs. In terms of the said agreement, the plaintiffs gave their written consent for construction of some structures on the suit premises by the defendant in accordance with two plans submitted by it on November 25, 1951 and August 13, 1955 to the South Suburban Municipality. The defendant erected those structures according to the plans. In or about the month of February 1962 the defendant surreptitiously and wrongfully erected an asbestos shed of brick built walls with pucca cemented floor measuring about 60' X 30' in the middle portion of the suit premises and made an addition of about 15'X6' on the eastern side of the approved leanto constructed on the western side of the suit premises, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and thereby changed the nature and character of the tenancy and committed breach of an express condition of the lease. In spite of notices served by the plaintiffs, the defendant failed and neglected to remove the said unauthorised constructions. Accordingly, the plaintiffs determined the tenancy of the defendant on the ground of forfeiture of the lease. The defendant not having vacated the suit premises, the suit was filed.
(3.) The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit. The defendant denied that it had constructed any structure without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. The case of the defendant is that whatever structure it has erected on the demised premises, the same has been done with the approval of the plaintiffs. It has been denied that there has been forfeiture of the lease or that the lease has determined by forfeiture.;