The transfer of ownership of a leased property does not automatically determine the lease, and the new owners are entitled to the benefit of the lease unless there is a contract to the contrary.

ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.

1. ONE, Gouri Sankar Dey, was the owner of premises no.125, B.K. Paul Avenue, Calcutta. He entered into a Deed of Lease with one Ram Gopal Agarwalla, son of Biseswar Agarwalla, whereby a portion of the said premises in question being one flat at northern side of premises no.P-51, since renumbered as premises no.125, B.K. Paul Avenue, Calcutta consisting of three bed rooms, one kitchen, one bath and one privy at a monthly lease rent of Rs.175/- per month for a period of 25 years commencing from Bengali calendar month Shraban 1363 B.S. and ending in Ashar 1388 B.S. The said Deed of Lease was executed by the parties and was duly registered on August 28, 1956 at the Office of the Registrar of Assurance, Calcutta. In terms of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 the mischief of the said Act stood excluded in performing the said Deed of Lease. Gouri Sankar Dey died during the subsistence of the said lease. His heirs conveyed the property being the said premises no.125, B. K. Paul Avenue, Calcutta to Gour Chandra Nandy, Dinesh Chandra Nandy and Santi Sudha Nandy vide Deed of Conveyance dated October 1, 1973. The lease stood determined by efflux of time on the last day of Ashar 1388 B.S. The new owners issued a notice dated June 17, 1981 through their advocate asking Ram Gopal Agarwalla to deliver vacant possession of the premises in question. Ram Gopal Agarwalla duly received the said notice as would be appearing from the exhibits.

2. RAM Gopal Agarwalla did not vacate despite notice resulting in filing of the eviction suit being Title Suit No.1591 of 1981 by Nandys' being the new owners. During the pendency of the said suit Gour Chandra Nandy died leaving his surviving heirs being the plaintiff no.1(a), (b) and (c). Ram Gopal Agarwalla contested the suit by filing written statement. He claimed holding over as a tenant having protection under the said Act of 1956. He also took the plea of defect in the service of notice.

3. THE plaintiff proved the Deed of Lease executed by Gouri Sankar Dey in favour of Ram Gopal Agarwalla. The Deeds of Conveyance executed by the heirs of Gouri Sankar Dey in favour of Nandys' and the ejectment notice served upon Ram Gopal Agarwalla including the postal acknowledgment. The defendant, on the other hand, executed rent receipts issued by Subh Karan Agarwalla, electric bill in the name of Ram Gopal Agarwalla and birth certificate certifying birth of a female baby by Santi Benia, wife of Ram Gopal Agarwalla, residing at 55, B. K. Paul Avenue, Calcutta. Dinesh Chandra Nandy, plaintiff no.3, deposed as P.W. 1 asserting that the defendant paid rent upto Baisakh 1388 B.S. He also proved the sale documents. According to him, the notice was duly served as would appear from the acknowledgment. He also deposed that the security deposit for two months was adjusted against Jaistha and Ashar being the last two months rent. Ram Gopal Agarwalla examined himself as D.W. 1. He denied of any document being prepared for his stay at the said premises. He contended that one Subh Karan Agarwalla was a tenant under the plaintiffs and he was sub-tenant under him. He subsequently changed his version and admitted his relationship with Gouri Sankar Dey and contended that he became a direct tenant under Gouri Sankar Dey at the rate of Rs.135 per month. He also admitted execution of the Deed of Lease. He, however, asserted that it was not acted upon. He also deposed that since Jaistha 1388 B.S. he had been depositing rent with the rent controller. However, up till January, 1956, he paid rent to Subh Karan Agarwalla. He, however, could not justify the existence of Subh Karan Agarwalla.

4. ON the strength of the above evidence, the learned Judge of the Court below decreed the suit. The learned Judge held that the status of the defendant as sub-tenant had no legal sanctity. The learned Judge, however, found justification in the contention of the defendant on the issue of service of not