A registered lease deed for a period of 20 years or above, with an effective period from the date of execution falling short of 20 years, is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.

1. This first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 28, 1995 passed by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 586 of 1986.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent for eviction of the appellants on the ground that a registered deed of lease was executed on March 10, 1966 between Sudhir Kumar Bose, the then owner of the property and Dhirendra Nath Sen, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 125/- per month for a period of 20 years commencing from March 1, 1966. The plaintiff/respondent purchased the said premises by a sale deed dated March 2, 1977 from the said Sudhir Kumar Bose. On the death of Dhirendra Nath Sen, the appellants became lessee under the respondent and the said lease having expired on February 28, 1986, the respondent was entitled to get a decree for eviction of the appellants as they did not vacate the suit property.

3. The said suit was contested by the present appellants thereby opposing the prayer of the respondent and the defence of the appellants was that after the expiry of the lease it was agreed between the parties that they would continue as usual as monthly tenants and accordingly the defendants paid rent for the month of March and April, 1986 to the plaintiff, who accepted the same but did not grant rent receipt for those months.

4. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the defence of the appellants and thus decreed the suit.

5. Being dissatisfied, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the instant first appeal. "

6. Mr. Mitra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants did not dispute the finding of fact arrived at by the learned trial Judge as regards the defence of the appellants that they paid rent but no receipt was granted by the landlord. Mr. Mitra has however raised a pure question of law which requires no investigation of new fact. According to Mr. Mitra, the lease deed having been admittedly executed on March 10, 1966 but the said lease having been given effect from March 1, 1966 for a period of 20 years from that day, the lease should be treated to be really a lease for less than 20 years. According to Mr. Mitra for all practical purposes it should be presumed that the lease was effective from the date of execution viz. March 10, 1966 and it ended with February 28, 1986, thus the same was limited for a period of 19 years 355 days. According to Mr. Mitra, in view of proviso to section 3(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,. the tenancy in question should be governed by the provision contained in West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and thus in the absence of any notice under section 13(6) of the aforesaid Act or in the absence of any grounds mentioned in section 13(1) thereof, the respondent was not entitled to evict the appellants. In support of such contention, Mr. Mitra has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Baneswar Pal vs. Nirmala Jyoti, reported in AIR 1979 Cal 396.

7. Mr. Dasgupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has however refuted the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mitra and has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Ranjit Kumar Dutta vs. Tapan Kumar Shaw and Anr., in F.A. No. 149 of 1994 wherein in view of difference of opinion of two Judges of the Division Bench on a different point the matter was referred to a third Judge and the Hon'ble Third Judge (Vidyanand, J.) accepted the view of Sidheswar Narayan, J. But both Judges, according to Mr. Dasgupta, held that if a lease deed is executed on a date thereby giving effect of the said lease from an anterior date, such lease should be held valid from that anterior date. The decision of the Third Judge has been reported in AIR 1997 Cal 278. We had also the opportunity of going through the separate judgments deliv