A lease may commence from a past date, but it operates as an effective lease from the date of execution. An application for amendment of the Written Statement must be bona fide, necessary in the interest of justice, and not provide the petitioner an opportunity to take an altogether new plea or make out a new case.

( 1 ) TWO applications were made in Suit No. 308 of 1989. One. made by the plaintiff on June 25. 1996 for a judgment upon admission and the other made by the defendant on September 31j. 1996. for amendment of the Writtenstatement On the prayer made by both the parties the applications were directed to appear and today, the two applications did appear in the Day's Cause List. Again on the prayer of the parties, both the applications were heard analogously and are disposed of by this order.

( 2 ) THE facts, briefly would appear to be, that the defendant was a tenant in the suit premises under the plaintiff. By a notice dated January 20, 1989, which admittedly was also a notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, served on the defendant, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy.

( 3 ) THIS suit being Suit No. 308 of 198 was instituted by the plaintiff on ,april 26, 1989, for eviction of the defendant and recovery of the suit-premises, and for other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff had alleged in the plaint. that the defendant was a monthly tenant, inducted by the plaintiff a defaulter in payment of rent, and had wrongfully sublet a portion of the suit-premises

( 4 ) ON May 18, 1989 the plaintiff' made an application, and prayed for a decree upon admission for a sum of Rs. 1,04,983,08 and an order of injunction to restrain the defendant from collecting rent from Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. , the sub-tenants of the defendant. By an order dated June 6,1989 this Court confirmed the interim order made earlier in the application, and directed the Bank to keep the rent, payable, in a separate account, and the defendant was restrained from transferring or parting with possession of the suit-premises. The application was disposed of by recording in the order, that in spite of service of notice no one had appeared for the defendant. The defendant made an application for recalling of the Order dated June 6,1989 and that application was dismissed. The defendant preferred an appeal. The application as also the appeal were dismissed by an order dated August 21,1989 and time of file the Written-Statement was extended by three weeks from the date of the order. The defendant filed its Written-Statement on September 28,1989.

( 5 ) IN the Written-Statement the defendant has contended,"that the defendant, is holding the said premises under the lease for a period of twenty years. In view of the same the defendant contends that the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1956, other than the provisions relating to rent and the provisions of Sections 11 and 36 shall not apply to the said premises held under such lease. "

( 6 ) IT was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that, on June 25, 1996, the plaintiff made this application, for judgment upon admission, and in that petition, the plaintiff had stated, that in all the affidavits filed by the defendant, in the several proceedings in the suit, and thereafter in the Written-Statement, the consistent defence of the defendant has been, that the defendant was holding the suit-premises under the lease, for a period of twenty years and that the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 were not applicable to such lease. It was contended by counsel on behalf of the plaintiff, that the defence taken by the defendant to oppose the case of the plaintiff, would but, certainly require the defendant to vacate and make over possession of the suit-premises to the plaintiff when the lease would come to an end. The lease, he submitted had admittedly ended by efflux of time on July 17,1995 and the defendant has since continued in wrongful occupation of the suit-premises and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree upon admission. According to him there was no denial by the defendant in its affidavit-in-opposition, that the lease had expired by efflux of time on July 17,1995 and such affidavit had been filed on December 10,1996, which wa