Biswajit Basu, J. - (1.) The present first appeal is at the instance of the defendant in suit for eviction and mesne profit and is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 30, 2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalpaiguri, in Title Suit No. 65 of 2005.
(2.) The brief details of the plaintiff's case in the suit is as follows:- (i) Mohan Lal Khemka, Mahabir Prasad Bhartia, Rama Sankar Bhartia, by different deeds of settlement created private trusts thereby appointed different trustees to hold the land described under the schedule appended to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit Land' in short) for the benefit of the minors of the family of the said settlors with the direction to handover the trust money to the beneficiaries of those trusts on their attaining the age of 18 years or 21 years as the case may be, as per the terms of the said deeds of settlement. (ii) The trustees of the said trust by an indenture of lease dated May 25, 1981 jointly sublet the suit land to the defendant, for the period of 15 years. Pursuant to and in terms of the said lease deed the defendant took possession of the suit land as sublessees of the said trusts and paid rent till April 19, 1994 but from May1984 the defendant failed, neglected or refused to pay any rent to the said trustees. (iii) The State of West Bengal initiated the proceeding for requisition of the suit land under the provisions of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The plaintiff challenged the legality and validity of the said acquisition proceeding in a writ petition being W.P. No. 13268 (W) of 1984. On August 19, 1985 in the said writ petition a direction was passed directing the defendant, the respondent No. 5 in the said writ petition to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiff for the period from May 1, 1984 to August 31, 1985. The said writ petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated September 25, 1998 thereby the said requisition/acquisition proceeding was quashed. The defendant unsuccessfully challenged the said order in appeal which was dismissed on November 16, 2000. The said trustees after much harassment on May 16, 2001 received the arrear rents for the period of September 1985 to May 24, 1996 from the defendant. (iv) In view of the pending writ proceedings the said trustees were unable to initiate eviction proceedings against the defendant, although the said lease had expired by efflux of time. In the mean time the beneficiaries under the said five trusts attained majority and the suit lands vest to the beneficiaries of the said trusts in terms of the direction of the deeds of settlement. The said beneficiaries of the said trusts alongwith two other persons formed a partnership firm under the name and style of "Shrinidhi Enterprices". The said beneficiaries contributed the suit land to the capital of the said partnership firm. The partners of the said firm thereafter formed a Joint Stock Company to carry on the business of the said partnership firm under the name and style "Sevoke Properties Limited", i.e. the plaintiff herein. The suit land thus has become the property of the plaintiff. (v) The provisions of Transfer of Properties Act, 1982 are applicable in the instant case. The defendant has not been accepted as a tenant after the expiry of the 15 years period under the lease dated May 25, 1981, nor it's continued possession assented to in any form or manner. Upon the expiry of the said period of the lease the plaintiff and/or its predecessors in interest have not accepted any rent from the defendant with regard to the said demised premises and as such the defendant is not entitled to occupy or possess the said demised premises or any part or portion thereof. The defendant was and is bound and obliged to quit and vacate the said demised premises upon the expiry of the period limited by the said lease. The defendant since is in wrongful possession of the suit land after the expiry of the said lease by efflux of time, the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit and/or damages and/or compensation form the defendant.
(3.) The defendant, the appellant herein entered appearance and contested the suit by filing the written statement. The defendant in it's written statement denied and disputed each and every allegations of the plaint. The specific case of the defendant in the said written statement is that the suit is bad for want of notice under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Premises Tenancy Act. The defendant, however, did not adduce evidence in the suit.;