SAMANTA, J.

(1) THE defendants are the appellants in this appeal, against the judgment and decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises no. 52-Patal Danga Street, P. S. Amherst Street, Calcutta-700 009 comprising of rooms on the two floors of the said premises as mentioned in detail in the schedule to the plaint.

(2) THE plaint case in brief is as under:-The plaintiff/respondent-Narayan Chandra Mallick and his only brother Balai Chand Mallick since deceased granted lease of the aforesaid suit premises to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, namely, Jiban Krishna Debnath for a period of 21 years commencing from 2nd of July, 1963 and expiring on 1st of April, 1984. During the subsistence of the said lease Balai Chand Mallick died leaving behind his wife Smt. Bela Rani Mallick as his only heir. The said Bela Rani mallick filed Title Suit No. 610 of 1970 for partition of the aforesaid premises. Through the intervention of the well wishers the said suit was compromised. Bela Rani sold her share to the plaintiff upon acceptance of consideration. The plaintiff thus became the full and absolute owner of the said premises.

(3) ALSO during the subsistence of the lease the lessee, Jiban Krishna debnath died leaving behind his widow, five sons and two daughters. On the death of lessee the two sons of the deceased lessee and his widow i. e. , defendant Nos. 1 to 3 by a letter informed the plaintiff that they along with their other brothers only are residing in the suit premises and as such became tenants under the plaintiff and they would be governed by the terms of the lease as entered into by and between the plaintiff and their father. By the said letter the defendants requested the plaintiff to issue the rent receipt in the name of their mother Smt. Renuka Debnath only. The said letter has been marked as Exhibit-11 in the said suit.

(4) THE said suit was filed after expiry of the period of lease. Three of the sons and two married daughters of the deceased were impleaded as defendants while the widow figured as defendant No. 1. The same was filed upon contention that the lease stood expired by efflux of time upon expiry of 1st of July, 1984 but the defendant did not quit, vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff since then. Altho. ugh the defendants were not entitled to any notice to quit but the plaintiff asked the defendants to quit, vacate and deliver possession of the suit premises by a letter dated 6th March, 1986 which was duly received by the defendants but failed and neglected to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff.

(5) THE defendants contested the suit by filing two separate sets ot written statements, one by defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the other by defendant No. 6. The sum and substance of both the written statement are more or less same. Besides, usual denial of all the statements of the plaint, in the written statements a case was made that the defendant no. 1, the widow of the deceased lessee having been granted rent receipt by the plaintiff acting on the basis of the said letter was accepted as a monthly tenant under him, the tenancy of which is governed by the West Bengal Premises. Tenancy Act, 1956.

(6) ON the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed by the learned Trial Judge, out of which two are of relevance, namely, is the suit bad for defect of parties and did the defendants acquire a new tenancy in theii favour during the continuance of the lease?

(7) IN the suit, plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 while the defendanl examined herself as D. W. 1. No other witnesses were examined in the suit,

(8) AT the trial the lease deed was proved in evidence and marked as exhibit-2. The sale deed executed by Smt. Bela Rani Mallick, wife of deceased balai Chand Mallick, in respect of her share in the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff was also marked as Exhibit-1.

(9) THE rent receipts issued i