- (1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it is against a judgment of reversal. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the disputed premises on the ground that the term of the lease having expired, the defendant was liable to deliver up possession of the disputed premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case in short, is that he leased out the disputed premises to the defendant by a registered deed dated April 25, 1955. The lease was for a period of 16 years commencing from November 1, 1954 and ending on October 31, 1970. It was provided in the lease that the lessee will give up peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the lesser on the expiry of the term of the lease. The plaintiff through his Advocate wrote a letter dated August 17, 1970 to the defendant requesting him to act in compliance with the aforesaid term of the lease. The defendant not having complied with the plaintiff's request the suit, out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiff. In the letter which was written to the defendant by the plaintiff's advocate it was mentioned that the plaintiff, required the suit premises for his own use and occupation.
(2.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement in which the defendant denied that it was in wrongful possession of the disputed premises from November 1, 1970. The defendant asserted that under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956 the defendant was entitled to remain in possession of the suit premises as long as the defendant paid the monthly rent as stipulated in the aforesaid lease. The defendant alleged that it had been duly observing and complying with the provisions of the lease and also of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and as the plaintiff landlord refused to accept rent, the defendant had been depositing the rent with the Rent Controller regularly. The defendant also took the plea that the letter addressed to him by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff was not a notice to quit and the suit was not maintainable in the absence of such a notice.
(3.) THE trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant was a tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for some limited purpose, namely, for the purpose of sections 4 to 12 and sections 31 and 2. 36 of the Act. Relying on certain decisions mentioned in its judgment the trial court came to the conclusion that after the expiry of the lease when the contractual tenancy came to an end, the defendant became a statutory tenant under the provisions of the Act and it was not liable to eviction under the provisions of the Act and also for want of a notice under section 13 (6) of the Act. In this view of the matter the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.;