D. C. CHAKRAVORTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the judgment and decree dated July 20, 1972 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court at Howrah affirming those passed by the learned Munsif, Third Court at Howrah.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant and for recovery of arrear rents and mesne profits from him on the following allegations: nagen Pal, the father of the present appellant was a tenant in respect of the suit land under the plaintiff under a registered deed of lease for a fixed period of 14 years commencing from the month of November 1953 and terminating on the expiry of the month of October 1967. Under the terms of the aforesaid lease the lessee was to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the aforesaid period without any notice. As the lessee did not so vacate the land the lessor by a lawyer's letter asked the lessee to vacate on the expiry of the month of November 1967. This was not complied with. The original lessee, said Nagendra Nath Pal, died leaving the present defendant as his sole heir. The plaintiff was accordingly constrained to file the present suit asking for the reliefs as aforesaid.

( 3 ) IN his written statement the defendant denies the material allegations contained in the plaint and his specific case is that he is a thika tenant and the present suit before the learned Munsif is accordingly not maintainable. The tenancy in question was in existence from long before the date of execution of the registered deed of lease. The deed of lease is accordingly illegal, invalid and inoperative and the tenant is not bound by its terms.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif decreed the suit. The appeal preferred from the decision of the learned Munsif was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge.

( 5 ) THE only question urged on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Advocate, is that in the present case on a proper construction of the registered deed of lease (Ext. 5) it will appear that the effective period of the lease in question was less than 12 years and that accordingly the lessee in this case would not come within the meaning of the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. In substance, Mr. Mukherjee's contention is that the lessee in this case is a thika tenant as denned by Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the said Act and that the present suit is, therefore, not maintainable. Subsection (5) of Section 2 of the said Act is as follows: '' (5) 'thika Tenant means any person who holds, whether under a written lease or otherwise, land under another person, and is or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent, at a monthly or any other periodical rate, for that land to that another person and has erected or acquired by purchase or gift any structure on such land for a residential, manufacturing or business purpose and includes the sucessors in interest of such person, but does not include a person-- (a) who holds such land under that another person in perpetuity; or (b) who holds such land under that another person under a registered lease, in which the duration of the lease is expressly stated to be for a period of not less than twelve years; or (c) who holds such land under that another person and uses or occupies such land as a khattal. "

( 6 ) IT is the admitted case of the parties and it will also appear from the deed of lease (Ext. 5) that said Nagendra Nath Pal was previously a thika tenant under the plaintiff, that the said previous thika tenancy was determined by a notice, that there was a proceeding instituted before the Thika Controller for eviction of said Nagendra Nath Pal, that during the pendency of the said proceeding being Misc. Case No. 269 of 1954 a new tenancy was created in favour of said Nagendra Nath Pal by the execution of the deed of lease in question, that the subject-matter of the new lease covered not only the land which was held b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document