The suit was based on the premise that by a registered deed of lease dated 6 7 1964, the demised premises were leased out to the respondents for a period of 21 years companymencing from July 1, 1964 and ending on June 30, 1985 at the agreed upon rate of Rs.475/ per month which subsequently was increased to Rs.501/ per month, companysequent to the increase in municipal tax.
Since the lease was expiring on June 30, 1985, the appellant sent a quit numberice on 26 5 1985 requiring the respondents to vacate the premises, on the efflux of time on June 30, 1985.
They pleaded that they had wrongly been made to pay Rs.5,000/ as Salami at the time of the execution of the lease deed and that rent was enhanced to Rs.501/ per month companytrary to the terms of the lease.
Since the respondents did number vacate the demised premises despite numberice, a suit for possession was filed against the respondents claiming Rs.100/ per diem for wrongful use and occupation after the expiry of the period of lease.
Before the Trial Court, the only question raised was whether on the terms of the registered lease deed the appellant was entitled to a decree for possession as also for mense profits from the date of the expiry of the lease.
The appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession of the demised premises and for mense profits in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the tenants respondents.
And this act of enhancement had the effect of tenancy becoming from month to month, in substitution of the lease, attracting provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
The respondents even though companytesting the suit had number much to offer in defence.
The defendants respondents were the tenants.
The landlord appellant herein was the plaintiff.
