A landlord's acceptance of rent after the expiry of a lease does not create a new tenancy by holding over if the landlord has previously sent a legal notice to the tenant informing that the option to renew the lease will not be exercised.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arrives out of a suit filed by the respondent herein against the Central bank of India for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises.

( 2 ) THE case as made out in the plaint is that the properties mentioned in the schedule thereto, along with other properties, belonged to one biswanath Chatterjee exclusively. On 21st May, 1965, the said Biswanath chatterjee granted a lease of the suit properties in favour of the Central bank of India for a period of 1 years commencing from 15th June, 1965. The lease deed contained an option clause for renewal of the lease for three further terms of seven years each on such terms and conditions as might be mutually agred upon.

( 3 ) THE said Biswanath Chatterjee died on 8th May, 1975, leaving a will by which he appointed the plaintiff. Baidya Nath Chattopadhyay as his sole Executor. On Biswanath chatterjee's death the plaintiff filed an application for grant of probate before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil court, at Calcutta, and such probate was duly granted to him on 17th august, 1993. Theee aforesaid lease expired by efflux of time on 15 June 1986. Prior to the expiry of the lease the plaintiff gave a legal notice to the bank on 16th April, 1986, informing the Bank that although the lease was to expire on 14th June, 1986, the option of renewal contained in the lease deed had not been enforced. It was also indicated in the notice that in view of such inaction by the Bank it was to be presumed that there was no intention on the part of the Bank to enforce or exercise the option of renewal and consequently the lease would stand determined by efflux of time on and from 15th June, 1986. Despite such notice, the Bank did not take any steps to exercise its option of renewal of the lease and continued in possession of the suit premises even after determination of the lease by efflux of time.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff/respondent thereupon filed the aforesaid suit on 25th june. 1986, immediately after the lease expired. The suit was hotly contested on behalf of the defendant/appellant and in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant it was categorically denied that the lease had been determined by efflux of time on and from the month of June, 1986. It was contended on behalf of the defendant/ appellant that prior to the expiry of the period of the lease a series of negotiations had been carried on between the plaintiff and the defendants with regard to the renewal of the lease and there was, therefore, no occasion for the defendant to deliver up peaceful and vacant possession of the leasehold premises. It was also denied that the defendant was in wrongful possession of the suit premises as alleged by the plaintiff.

( 5 ) A specific defence was taken on behalf of the defendant Bank that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for khas possession of the leasehold premises, inasmuch as, even after 15th June, 1986, the plaintiff accepted rents from the defendant thereby creating a new tenancy in respect of the suit premises by way of holding over. Of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff, one-was the Manager of the estate of the plaintiff and the other was an employee, who was an attesting witness in respect of the Will executed by Biswanath Chatterjee. The defendant Bank examined its accountant of its Posta Bazar Branch.

( 6 ) AFTER considering the evidence adduced by the parties and the materials on record, the learned Judge, Vlth bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, decreed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 25th January, 1994 and 21st February, 1994, respectively and directed that the plaintiff do recover khas possession of suit property by evicting the defendant therefrom. The plaintiff was also given a decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day from 15th June, 1986, till recovery of khas possession of the suit premises.

( 7 ) THIS appeal is directed against the said judgment and decree of the lear