Therefore, the matter will be governed by West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The monthly rent was fixed at Rs 160.
They shall have numberright to hold over the demised premises after the said period under any circumstances.
By judgment dated 16 1 1973, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved by that dismissal, Title Appeal No.
His heirs did number deliver possession.
On his refusal to accept the same, the defendants have been duly depositing the rent for the suit premises month by month with the Rent Controller, Calcutta.
They are still residing therein as monthly tenants.
266 A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta in favour of Lall Behari Mullick under a registered lease deed dated 11 7 1966.
The said appeal was allowed by impugned judgment dated 20 12 1977.
The lease deed companytained a companyenant that the lease was for the lifetime of the lessee and his heirs, executors, administrators, representatives and assigns must yield up and deliver quiet, peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises within three months of the date of the death of the lessee unconditionally and without any objection whatever.
704 of 1971 for eviction of the defendants.
The defendants who were residing in the said suit premises with the said Lall Behari Mullick during his lifetime have become monthly tenants under the plaintiffs, by operation of law.
105 of 1974 was filed by the respondents before the High Court of Calcutta.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. This appeal arises out of the certificate issued by the High Court of Calcutta under Article 133 a and b of the Constitution of India.
This necessitated filing of Suit No.
The lessee died on 16 12 1970.
The principal defence raised in the written statement was that the original lessee Lall Behari Mullick having died on 16 12 1970, the registered lease deed dated 11 7 1966 will fall under category of a lease for less than five years by operation of statute.
After the death of Lall Behari Mullick, the rent for the suit premises was sent to appellant 1 by money order by defendant 1.
