D.B.Dutta, J. - (1.) The instant revision is directed against the order No. 19 dated 17.3.99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 158 of 1997 rejecting an application for amendment of a written statement.
(2.) The opposite parties filed a suit being Title Suit No. 108 of 1978 against the petitioner for recovery of khas possession. The opposite parties' case may be stated as follows. The plaintiff opposite parties are the trustees of the Trust estate under a Deed of Trust settlement dated 15th July, 1946. The suit property belongs to the said Trust. By a registered deed of lease dated 11th May, 1957 executed by the then trustees and the defendant petitioner, the defendant was holding as a lessee of the suit property for a period of 16 years commencing from 1st October, 1956 at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- payable according to English Calendar month. One of the terms of the lease provided for an option to the lessee for a fresh lease for a further period of five years on the expiry of the original term of 16 years. Before the expiry of the original term of the lease on 1st October, 1971, the defendant approached the plaintiff trustees for renewal of the said lease for a further period of five years and the plaintiff allowed the defendant to continue to be in possession on the expiry of the earlier term of the lease for a further period of five years. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants did not execute the formal lease in terms of the earlier lease. The lease thus expired by efflux of time on 1st October, 1977 and in terms of the lease, the defendant was under an obligation to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs on the expiry of the lease but they have failed to do so and have been wrongfully and illegally continuing in possession of the suit premises on and from 2nd October, 1977.
(3.) The defendant petitioner contested the suit on filing a written statement. It denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It also challenged the plaintiff's right to sue and the maintainability of the suit. It was contended, inter alia, by the defendant that it has been holding the premises in suit as a tenant under one Kartick Puja Trust Estate since October, 1972. The plaintiffs ceased to have any interest in the suit property. The plaintiff trustees of the Trust Estate which was created on the basis of the Deed of Trust dated 15th July, 1946 jointly represented to the defendant that ownership of the premises in suit vested in Kartick Puja Trust Estate on and from 2nd October, 1972 and directed the defendant to make payment of the rent to Kartick Puja Trust Estate and that in obedience to the said direction of the plaintiff trustees in relation to the suit property, the defendant has been making payment of the rent at the stipulated rate of Rs.300/- per month only to the Kartick Puja Trust Estate.;