A tenancy created by registered lease deeds for less than 20 years, with an option for earlier termination, is governed by the WBPT Act, even if the tenant has occupied the property continuously for 20 years.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration that it is a tenant governed under the provisions of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and in any way affecting the right of the plaintiff as a premises tenant and this appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13th June, 1995 passed by the learned trial Judge thereby dismissing the suit

( 2 ) THE following facts are not in dispute1 ). The plaintiff was put into possession of the suit property as a tenant on 1 st October, 1965 and long thereafter, on 25th October, 1967 a registered deed of lease was executed between the parties by which the plaintiff was recognised as a lessee for ten years with effect from 1st October, 1965, the date of initial induction It was specifically provided in the said deed of lease that the lease would come to an end with the expiry of 30th September, 1975 with a clause of renewal at the instance of the lessee2 ). In spite of expiry of the said lease, the plaintiff continued in possession and subsequently, on 13th September. 1976 another registered lease-deed was executed by the parties by which it was stipulated that the second term of the lease would continue from 1 st October, 1975 and would come to an end on 30th September, 1985. (3 ). Subsequently, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff was a monthly tenant governed by the provisions of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit by filing written statement thereby contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff having enjoyed the tenancy for a continuous period of twenty years by virtue of two successive registered deeds of lease of ten years each, the tenancy did not come within the purview of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act

( 4 ) AT the time of hearing of the suit, evidence was adduced on behalf of the parties and the registered deeds of lease were exhibited

( 5 ) THE learned Trial Judge by the judgment and decree impugned herein has held that the plaintiff having enjoyed a tenancy for twenty years by two successive registered deeds of lease of ten years each, such tenancy was not governed by the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act

( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present first appeal

( 7 ) MR Roy Chowdhury, the learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended before us that there being two successive lease deeds for ten years each, the tenancy in question cannot be said to be one created by virtue of a registered deed of lease for twenty years and thus, the tenancy is governed by the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

( 8 ) MR Roy Chowdhury next contends that it would appear that the first registered lease-deed was executed on 25th October, 1967 and the same was given effect to from an anterior date, namely, 1 st October, 1965, and therefore, the said lease-deed should be construed to be one for eight years.

( 9 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury further contends that similarly, the second lease-deed dated 13th September, 1976 was really for nine years and thus the total period of lease was less than twenty years. Apart from the aforesaid fact, Mr. Roy Chowdhury contends that his client having been inducted in the property on 1 st October, 1965 without execution of any deed of lease and the said tenancy being continuing, the same was definitely a tenancy governed under the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the subsequent execution of two different deeds of lease forten years did not affect the original tenancy Mr Roy Chowdhury, thus, prays for setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and for passing a decree in terms of the prayer made in the plaint.

( 10 ) MR Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, has