Judgment

M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

(1) IN furtherance to our order dated 11/5/1994, allowing this appeal, setting aside the judgment and order of the division bench of the Calcutta High court, restoring that of the trial court, we hereby release our deferred reasons to complete the judgment.

(2) THE landlord-appellant herein was the plaintiff. The defendants-respondents were the tenants. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession of the demised premises and for mesne profits in the City Civil court at Calcutta against the tenants-respondents. 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 commencing from 1/7/1964 and ending on 30/6/1985 at the agreed upon rate of Rs. 475.00 per month which subsequently was increased to Rs. 501.00 per month, consequent to the increase in municipal tax. Since the lease was expiring on 30/6/1985, the appellant sent a quit notice on 26/5/1985 requiring the respondents to vacate the premises, on the efflux of time on 30/6/1985. Since the respondents did not vacate the demised premises despite notice, a suit for possession was Filed against the respondents claiming Rs. 100.00 per diem for wrongful use and occupation after the expiry of the period of lease.

(3) THE respondents even though contesting the suit had not much to offer in defence. They pleaded that they had wrongly been made to pay Rs. 5,000.00 as Salami at the time of the execution of the lease deed and that rent was enhanced to Rs. 501.00 per month contrary to the terms of the lease. 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.

(4) 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 mesne profits from the date of the expiry of the lease. The trial court in its well-reasoned judgment came to the conclusion that the stipulated rent of Rs. 475.00 per month was rightly increased to Rs. 501.00 per month with effect from January 1969 because of increase in municipal tax and therefore on this factum, there could be no implied surrender under Section 111(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, there being no novation of the lease, or any change In the terms thereof. The trial court further viewed that since enhancement in rent on account of the enhancement of municipal tax was itself stipulated in the lease of deed, there was in fact no enhancement of rent by the appellant. On that premise, the trial court decreed the suit for possession and for payment of mesne profits at the rate and from the date claimed by the appellant. The High court on appeal by the tenants-respondents reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court without demolishing the grounds on which the judgment of the trial court was based, but on grounds totally different.

(5) SECTION 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, prior to its amendment, effective from 24/8/1965, rendered the provisions of the Act inapplicable to any premises held under a lease for more than 20 years, whether the purpose of the lease was residential or non-residential. By the amendment of 1965, this provision was retained and re-numbered as sub-section (1 of Section 3 while adding thereto Ss. (2. The provision as it stands reads as follows:

"3. Certain provisions of the Act not to apply to certain leases. (1The provisions relating to rent and the provisions of S. 31 and 36 shall apply to any premises held under a lease for residential purpose of the lessee himself and registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, where-

(A) such lease is for a period of not more than 20 years, and save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall apply to any premises held under a lease f