The trial court erred in admitting secondary evidence of the lease agreement and the assignment deed without proper compliance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and failed to properly frame and decide the issues in the case, as required by Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 27-8-84, passed in Title Suit No. 2371 of 1980, by Sri K. D. Banerjee, learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta. By such determination, the plaintiff-respondents' suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises, which is 40, Sri Arabindo Sarani (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), by evicting the defendant-appellants therefrom, on the grounds of expiry of the terms of lease (Ext. 1), upon service of notice to that effect, was decreed ex parte with costs and it was further directed that the plaintiff-respondents would be entitled to have a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises, by evicting the defendant-appellants therefrom and the defendant-appellants were allowed time till 31-10-84, to quit and vacate the said premises. Apart from the above, the learned Judge also directed that the plaintiff-respondents would be entitled to recover mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month with effect from 1-9-80, till recovery of khas possession of the said premises.

( 2 ) IT was the case of the plaintiffs, that one Rashbehari Basu and one Kumud Behari Basu were the original owners of the said premises and by an indenture of lease (Ext. 1) dt. 7-9-59, the said premises was leased out to Meghraj Bubna, defendant 2, in the suit, and such lease commenced from 1-10-59 and was due to expire on 30-9-80.

( 3 ) IT was also alleged that during the continuance of the lease, the said Meghraj Bubna assigned the lease in favour of the defendant 1, Smt. Sulochona Devi Bubna by a deed of assignment (Ext. 5) dt. 13-3-67, on the same terms and conditions for the unexpired period and thereafter, by another indenture dt. 20-3-74 the said Rashbehari Basu sold his undivided 3/4th share of the said premises in favour of one Gobinda Chandra Nag and the other owner, Sri Kumud Behari Basu, by an indenture of the same date, sold his undivided th share in the said premises in favour of one Krishna Ram Nag, since deceased. It has also been stated that the said Krishna Ram Nag, while alive, by another deed of gift dt. 18-4-75, transferred the portion of the said premises as mentioned above and which was held by him, in favour of plaintiff 2, Sm. Astami Nag. That being the position, it has further been stated that the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the said premises.

( 4 ) IT has further been alleged that the defendants paid rents to the plaintiffs regularly and up to Sept. 1980 and after the expiry of the lease (Ext 1) on 30-9-80, the defendant 1 is not vacating the said premises in spite of repeated demand and request, made both orally and through a notice as mentioned in para 7 of the plaint.

( 5 ) IN her written statement, the defendant 1, apart from denying the material allegations, stated that she had no knowledge of the concerned lease dt. 7-9-59, which was said to be given to the defendant 2 and she only knew that the said defendant 2 was a monthly tenant in respect of the said property. There was another written statement filed by defendant -2, wherein, amongst others, such dispute as indicated hereinbefore was also raised.

( 6 ) ON the pleadings, the learned Court below on 4-2-82 framed the following issues for determination :-1. Are the plaintiffs entitled to recover possession of the suit premises on the expiry of the period of lease as stated in the Deed dt, 7-9-1959? 2. Is the defendant 1, a tenant under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in respect of the suit premises. 3. To what reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled. 4. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

( 7 ) IT would appear from the recording as made in the judgment as impeached, that the learned Court below has observed that the learned Advocate for the defendant 1 took such attitude, for which the case had to be heard ex parte and more particularly, as he declined to participate in the proceedings.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, on 27-8-