( 1 ) THE plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit against the appellant and the proforma respondent (proforma defendant in the suit)praying inter alia for a declaration that the lease dated 1st September, 1969 stands determined from 1st July, 1990, a decree for eviction against the defendants and a decree against the defendant-company for mesne profit from 2nd July 1990 at the rate of 800/- per day till the date of recovery of possession and a decree for damages.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs/respondents was that on 1st September, 1969 one Satya Narayan Poddar and the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 granted a lease to the defendant No. I/appellant by executing an Indenture of lease in respect of a portion measuring about 850 sq. ft. of the first floor of premises No. 4, ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta, according to the lease the demise was for a period of 10 years comencing from 1" June, 1969 with an option for renewal on the part of the lessee for a further period of 11 years from the expiration of the said term; that the defendant/appellant would not be entitled to transfer, assign or sublet or underlet or grant any lease or licence in respect of suit property to any person without the written consent of the lessor and the rent for the demised premises would be Rs. 750/- per month and Rs. 250/- per month would be payable by the lessee by way of service charges; the defendant/appellant exercised the said option for renewal of the lease in or about June, 1979 for a further period of 11 years. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, on or about 29th September, 1973 the defendant/ appellant sublet a portion of the demised premises measuring about 300 sq. ft. to the proforma-defendant without the written consent of the plaintiffs/ respondents and thus the said defendant caused a breach of the terms and conditions embodied in the said lease deed, on 3rd February, 1981 the defendant company filed a suit against the proforma-defendant in the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta praying for recovery of vacant possession of the portion measuring 300 sq. ft. According to the plaintiff, the lease dated lst september, 1969 which was with effect from 1st June, 1969 stood determined by efflux of time on 1st July, 1990 but the defendant/appellant failed and neglected to hand order possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and hence the said suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant/appellant contested the said suit by filing a written statement and an additional written statement. The defence of the defendant/ appellant was to the effect that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit as the value of the suit has been intentionally escalated by the plaintiffs. According to the said defendant, it has not sublet any portion of the demised premises to the proforma-defendant and the proforma-defendant has been a licensee of the defendant with the consent of the landlords. The defendant/appellant took the stand that all rents have been duly collected by the Collecting Agency of the landlords but when the said agency refused to accept the rent which was tendered by the defendant/ appellant, the defendant/appellant has been depositing the rent in the office of the Rent Controller. The defendant's case is that the defendant is a tenant as defined in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and there has been no agreement dated 1st June, 1969.

( 4 ) THE said suit came up for hearing and the parties adduced evidence. The Hon'ble First Court by its judgment and decree dated 10th February, 2005 was pleased to pass a decree directing the defendant/appellant to put the plaintiff in possession of the property specified in the schedule to the lease deed dated 1st September, 1969. His Lordship was also pleased to appoint a referee for the purpose of ascertaining mesne profits payable by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff as indicated in His Lordship's judgment.

( 5 ) THE Hon'ble First Court was pleased to frame four is