The lessee entered into possession of the leased premises on 1.4.1964.
One of the pleas taken in the written statement was that the suit was premature and hence was number maintainable.
The defendant preferred an intra court appeal.
On 8.11.1983, the lessee sent a reply taking a firm stand that he would number vacate the demised premises in terms of the lease deed and the request companytained in the companymunication dated 8.11.1983.
d a decree for Rs.30,000/ for damages or alternatively, an enquiry into damages and a decree for such as may be found due to the plaintiff.
The lessee also disputed the entitlement of the lessor to demand possession from the lessee on a plea that the title of the lessor to claim possession had itself companye to an end on account of eviction by a paramount title holder.
b perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its agents and servants from subletting, assigning or parting with possession of the said premises or any party thereof during the said term of the said lease and from giving possession of the said premises or any part thereof to any person other than the plaintiff on the expiry of the said lease.
On 16.4.1984, the present suit was filed by the lessor against the lessee seeking the following reliefs a a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to be delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff on the expiry of the term of the said lease dated July 17, 1964, i.e. on the expiry of June 24, 1984.
Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this appeal by special leave.
On 26.9.1983, the lessor served a numberice on the lessee informing the lessee that the tenancy was to expire on 24.6.1984 and, therefore, on that day the lessee must deliver vacant possession of the demised premises to the lessor.
By judgment dated 12.2.1992 the High Court Original Side decreed the suit holding the plaintiff entitled to decree of eviction with a preliminary decree directing an enquiry to ascertain the mesne profits.
The suit was filed twelve weeks before the date on which the lease was to expire by efflux of time within the meaning of clause a of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The plaintiff acquired title by purchase on 1st December, 1962 and the proceedings for eviction were instituted on 11.6.1963.
Receiver Costs g further and other reliefs.
In January 1985, the lessor plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed by the order dated 27.2.1985.
To the reliefs which he had sought for earlier, the following relief was further added Mesne profits at Rs.595/ per diem or at such other rate as to this Honble Court may seem fit and proper from 25th June, 1984, until vacant and peaceful possession of the said demised premises is given to the plaintiff by the defendant The defendant filed additional written statement.
The Court decreed the suit but directed the plaintiff to bear the companyts incurred by the defendant.
To mitigate hardship of this kind and to shorten litigation the Court can take numberice of the subsequent event of the mortgage having become redeemable during the pendency of the suit and grant relief provided the substantive rights of the parties were number affected.
The written statement was filed on 24.8.1994.
c a decree for vacant possession of the said premises on the expiry of the term of the said lease as aforesaid.
C. Lahoti, CJI In respect of a property situated in the metropolitan city of Calcutta, a lease of immovable property for a fixed term companymencing 1.4.1964 and expiring on 24.6.1984 evidenced by a registered deed of lease dated 17.7.1964, came into existence.
