- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for recovery of money and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th February, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st Court, Midnapore, in Money Suit No. 143 of 1994 thereby passing a decree in part by directing the appellants to pay arrears of rent at the enhanced rate with effect from 1st July, 1989 to 30th June, 1994. The learned Trial Judge further directed the parties to renew the lease dated 17th August, 1979 immediately. The respondents, however, were, directed to renovate the building after the receipt of money from the defendants. The appellants were further directed to pay the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 2. 90p. a sq. ft: from 1st july, 1994 to 30th June, 1999. Prayer for interest, however, was, refused.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the defendants have come up with the present first appeal.
(3.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be precised thus : (a) The appellant-Bank was a monthly tenant in the premises mentioned in schedule to the plaint from the year 1978. There was an unregistered agreement for tenancy between the parties with effect from 1st June, 1978 for a period of six years with a condition of option for continuing the tenancy for a further period of five years with the stipulation that the rate of rent would be Rs. 2,200/- a month. (b) The period of tenancy expired on 30th June, 1989 as per the terms of the said agreement between the parties and thereafter, the respondents demanded the enhancement of monthly rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 3/- a sq. ft. A letter claiming such demand was received by the Bank on 13th May, 1989. (c) The area of the tenanted portion is 2,950 sq, ft. on the ground floor, 2,795 sq. ft. o. n the first floor and 1,840 sq. ft. on the second floor and thus, the total area was 7,565 sq. ft. For the convenience of the business of the Bank, the plaintiffs- landlords made a strong room and currency-chest and dug tube-well on the belief that the bank would enhance the rate as claimed by the plaintiffs. (d) The Bank did not take any tangible step for renewal of lease as well as payment of arrears of rent with retrospective effect at the rate of Rs. 2/- a sq. ft. from 1 st July, 1989 till 5th July, 1993 when the defendant No. 2 informed that the Regional Building Committee accepted and agreed to pay at the rate of Rs. 2/- a sq. ft. from 1 st july, 1989 and the enhancement of rent for the optional period for five years at the rate of 45% but the defendant-Bank neither paid the arrears agreed upon by the parties nor did take any steps for renewal of lease. (e) Ultimately, on demand of the learned Advocate on behalf of the plaintiffs in writing, the defendants replied the said letter through the learned Advocate wherein the defendants denied the claim and made some allegations, which were against the acceptance of the Regional Building Committee's recommendation. (f) The claim of arrears from 1st July, 1989 till November, 1994 in terms of recommendation of the Regional Building Committee of defendants came to Rs. 9,46,892. 50p. and the defendants also were legally liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. The cause of action arose on the expiry of 15 days from the notice dated 21st October, 1994 and the refusal to pay;