P.K. Banerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal at the instance of the Plaintiff -Appellant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Howrah, dismissing the suit for ejectment. The Defendant, a brick manufacturer, took a lease for 9 months for the first instance from Magh 1338 B.S. to Aswin 1339 B.S. It was continued from time to time. The rent was for a sum of Rs. 250 per month which subsequently was enhanced to Rs. 300 per month. It is alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendant became a defaulter and the Plaintiff terminated the lease after service of notice to quit, but as the Defendant did not comply with the notice, the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits was brought. The trial Court decreed the suit. The appeal was taken by the Defendant and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal. The Plaintiff preferred the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for khas possession but decreed the claim for the rent. Mr. Amarendra Nath Gupta, on behalf of the Appellant, contended that the tenancy was to be governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the finding of the Appellate Court on the question of notice was wrong; and secondly, that the Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the suit was not maintainable in view of the vesting of the estate in the State of West Bengal under Sec. 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. But on consideration of the facts we hold that the land for the purpose of brick -field was let out and the structures were erected. But we find that the notice of 6 months terminating the lease is valid and in fact is not very much disputed before us.
(2.) But the main point argued by Mr. Gupta is that the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provision regarding the vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Mr. Gupta argued that the tenancy was terminated with the expiry of Aswin 1359 B.S. and the suit was brought on November 29,1962. The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, came into force on April 15, 1955, long after the determination of the tenancy and filing of the suit and the Plaintiff's right to get possession accrued before the coming into force of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and, as such, the provision of the said Act does not at all affect the suit itself. Moreover, it was submitted by Mr. Gupta that the fact of vesting does not at all affect the pending suit or appeal. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta referred to a Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in Lalji Agarwalla Jain v/s. Jhingu Goala , (1957) 61 C.W.N. 607 wherein Mr. Justice P. N. Mukherjee (as he then was) held as follows: At the hearing, a preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the Appellant's estate including the disputed land having vested in the State under the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the Appellant had no locus standi to maintain or continue this appeal. We do not think, however, that this objection is sound. So far as the disputed land is concerned, the Appellant's claim for compensation will greatly vary in amount according as it is tenanted or hhcos. If the present appeal succeeds, the Appellant will be entitled to khas possession of the land though that possession will ultimately ensure to the State's benefit and his claim for compensation will be determined on that footing. If it fails, the land will remain the tenant Respondent's land under the Appellant and will be tenanted land so far as the Appellant is concerned and his compensation will be determined accordingly. In this view, we overrule the preliminary objection and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
(3.) This decision was again followed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.L. Dalrriia & Company v/s. Chinta Haran Mukherjee , (1958) 62 C.W.N. 505.;