PABITRA KUMAR BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are on behalf of the defendant Pieco Electronics and Electricals Ltd. (shortly the Company) and they arise out of two suits being T. S. Nos. 28 and 89 respectively of 1984 commenced by the plaintiff-respondents in the Court of the 4th Assistant District Judge, Alipore for a decree for eviction and mesne profits in respect of two flats and two garages described in the schedules to the respective plaints on the allegations inter alia that by two unregistered deeds of lease dated 1st February 1955 the defendant was inducted into the suit premises by Property Development Trust Private Limited at a monthly rental of Rs. 225/- and 250/- respectively for a period of 25 years and that in terms of the said lease the defendant was required to deliver up vacant possession to the lessor on the expiry of the lease. As the defendant failed and neglected to vacate the disputed premises even after the expiry of the tenure of the lease, the plaintiffs were obliged to file two suits for the reliefs hereinbefore stated.

( 2 ) THE defence is one of the right of a monthly tenant which it is stated to have come into existence by payment to and acceptance of rents by the landlords and protected against eviction under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 3 ) UPON the above facts the learned Assistant District Judge found that the unregistered deed of lease was admissible in evidence and could be looked into for collateral purposes, that the defendant lessee was not a monthly tenant under the Act, that its possession was protected under S. 53a Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter called the T. P. Act) and that its possession beyond the period of lease is that of a trespasser. He accordingly passed decrees for eviction and mesne profits by two separate judgments dated 31-3-86. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant company has come up to this Court in appeal. The plaintiffs respondents have filed cross-objection in both the appeals. As the appellant is the same and as common questions of fact and law are involved in both the appeals, these have been heard together for the sake of convenience and for avoiding unnecessary repetitions.

( 4 ) MR. Bamkim Chandra Dutta, the learned advocate for the appellant in both the appeals argued before us that the alleged agreements for lease and the deeds of lease for a period of 25 years not having been registered according to law are void and inoperative and consequently the plaintiff-respondents are not entitled to a decree for eviction and mesne profits on the basis of the void deeds. It was next contended that in the absence of any valid document creating the lease, the payment of rent by the defendant-appellant and acceptance of the same by the plaintiff-respondents together with long and uninterrupted possession in respect of the disputed premises constituted a monthly tenancy in favour of the appellant and that the incidents of the tenancy would be governed by the provisions of the Act. Mr. Dutta emphatically submitted that S. 53a of the T. P. Act cannot be invoked in aid of the plaintiffs claim for ejectment in as much as the induction of the defendant into the suit premises was independent of any void document and that the protection under S. 53a of T. P. Act is available only byway of defence who can use it as a shield and not by the plaintiffs for the purpose of using it as a sword. Reference was made to S. 13 (1) (a) of the Act and it was contended in the last resort that the defendant-appellant can be evicted only under any of the grounds covered by S. 13 of the Act and not otherwise. With regard to the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff-respondents, it was urged that they are not entitled to any mesne profits at all. We propose to discuss several decisions cited by Mr. Dutta at the appropriate stage.

( 5 ) MR. Aninda Mitra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents in bot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document