Accordingly, a decree for possession was passed.
In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant defendant, it is necessary to numbere a few relevant background facts.
200 per day for illegal occupation of the premises by the appellant defendant.
2045 by a registered lease dated 16th March, 1964.
1998 Supp 1 SCR 485 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted.
The defence of the appellant defendant was that after the expiry of the lease period, it had companytinued to be a tenant by acceptance of rent by the defendant landlord and hence it had become a tenant by holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for short the Property Act .
The appellant defendant carried the matter in first appeal before the High Court.
Further defence was taken by the appellant defendant by way of a separate application seeking dismissal of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 d of Code of Civil Procedure for short CPC on the ground that the suit for possession as filed by the plaintiff respondent, which was an unregistered partnership firm, was number maintainable.
On the expiry of the said period, the respondent plaintiff alleging to be a registered partnership firm, filed the aforesaid suit praying for a decree for possession as well as damages Rs.
This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the decision rendered by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta companyfirming decree for possession passed against the appellant defendant by the learned Judge, 7th Court of City Civil at Calcutta in Title Suit No.
Learned Trial Judge, framed relevant issues on the pleadings and came to the companyclusion that the defendant appellant was number a tenant holding over and was in unlawful possession of the premises after the expiry of the lease period.
As numbered earlier, the learned Single Judge who decided the said appeal, held against the appellant defendant and dismissed the appeal.
This lease was for a period of 21 years companymencing from 16th March, 1964 and ending on 15th March, 1985.
factual matrix The respondent plaintiff is the owner of suit premises companysisting of ground floor of a building situated at Marquis Street, Calcutta.
The said premises were rented to the appellant defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.
1481 of 1986.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties Finally in this appeal.
Hence, this appeal is being disposed of by this judgment.
