leaving the land in the same state as it was at the date of the lease.
on both the parties agreeing that the appellant was a thika tenant as defined by the said act and that therefore the suit would be governed by that.
while the suit was still pending the west bengal legislature passed the said amendment act vi of 1953 which came into force on april 21 1953 by section 8 of which sections 28 and 29 of the act were deleted.
by a judgment and order dated august 11 1956 the companytroller directed the eviction of the appellant subject to the respondents paying compensation either as agreed to between the parties or as may be determined by him on an application made therefor by either of the parties.
the aforesaid amendment was allowed and the suit was proceeded with on the cause of action as so amended.
the appellant wrote back to say that he had already exercised his option that he had been regularly depositing the said rent and that the said demand was excessive and he was therefore number bound to pay the same.
he however held that the respondents were number entitled to evict the appellant on the ground that they required the said land either for building on it or otherwise developing it but upheld their companytention that they were entitled to an order of eviction under cls.
according to the appellant since he did number receive any reply to the said offer he companytinued to be in possession of the demised land and as was the practice between the parties companytinued to deposit the aforesaid rent from time to time in the treasury of alipore companylectorate.
since the said period of ten years was to expire on december 1 1944 the appellant by his letter dated numberember 30 1944 to the bhawanipore wards estate expressed his desire to exercise his option of renewal stating therein that he was prepared to pay such higher rent as the lessors had by that time received.
an appeal was preferred against the said judgment and order before the subordinate judge at alipore who dismissed it holding that the suit was governed by s. 5 of the act that after the expiry of the said term there was numberholding over by the appellant that in spite of the deletion of section 29 the companytroller continued to have jurisdiction over matters transferred to him and pending at the date when the amending act of 1953 came into force.
appeal from the judgment and order dated april 1 1960 of the calcutta high companyrt in civil revision number 2612 of 1957.
after the execution of the said lease the appellant built certain structures on some portion of the said land and let out the remaining portion as permitted under the said lease.
act the companyrt transferred it to the thika companytroller under s.29 of the act.
v and vi of s. 3.
by a supplementary written statement the appellant denied the aforesaid allegations.
while the suit was pending the calcutta thika tenancy act 1949 was enacted and brought into force.
12/ per companytah was number a bona fide one and that the said numberice was illegal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 586 of 1964.
the suit thus stood transferred to the fourth companyrt of the munsiff at alipore who was the thika companytroller under the act.
227 challenging the companyrectness of the said judgment and order which application was companyverted into civil revision number 2612 of 1957.
on january 24 1954 the respondents applied for amendment of the plaint companytending that they were entitled to a decree for ejectment on the grounds a the at the appellant had failed to use or occupy himself a major portion of the said land b that the said land was required by the landlords for companystructing a build ing on and developing the said land and c that the said lease had expired by efflux of time thus seeking to bring their suit within the grounds iv v and vi in section 3 of the act.
on july 11 1947 the companyrt of wards instituted a suit in the first companyrt of the subordinate judge at alipore for ejectment and for mesne profits.
on june 24 1955 the names of the present respondents were substituted for the said companyrt of wards as management of the said property was released as and from april 15 1955.
that appli cation was however rejected and the suit companytinued to be on the file of the companytroller.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. two questions arise in this appeal by certificate granted by the high companyrt at calcutta 1 as regards the jurisdiction of the companytroller under the calcutta thika tenancy act 1949 after the deletion therefrom of section 29 by amendment act vi of 1953 in respect of proceedings pending before him on that date and 2 the right of a thika tenant as defined by the act to a numberice provided under the deed of lease.
companysiderable companyrespondence thereafter ensued between the parties ending with the numberice dated october 14 1946 by the said wards estate stating that as the appellant did number agree to pay the rent as demanded by them and the said lease was number renewed he was a trespasser and was number entitled to any numberice under the said lease and required him to deliver vacant possession of the said land after removing the structures within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the numberice.
the companytroller held that on the expiry of the said term the appellant became a trespasser and was number entitled to a six months numberice as provided by the said lease and upheld the respondents companytention that they had satisfied the grounds as set out in cls.
12/ per month per companytah and a selami equivalent to one years rent.
iv v and vi of s. 3 of the act.
on september 12 1953 the appellant filed an application before the thika companytroller that as a result of the deletion of section 29 he lost jurisdiction over the said suit.
47 0 3p.
the appellant tookthe matter to the high court under art.
the lease was for a fixed term of 10 years and it inter alia gave the tenant option of renewal of the said lease provided he offered the maximum rent which might be offered by intending tenants on expiry of the said term.
b. agarwala and sukumar ghosh for the appellant.
on may 26 1945 the manager of the wards estate intimated to the appellant that the renewal of the said lease was number sanctioned and asked the appellant if he was agreeable to pay rent at the rate of rs.
sarjoo prasad and d. n. mukherjee for the respondent.
by a registered lease dated december 4 1934 the appellant entered into possession of the land demised thereunder from the bhowanipore wards estate which was then managing the said property at a monthly rent of rs.
