Debangsu Basak, J.

The continued occupation of Premises No. 67/45-B, Strand Road, Kolkata by the defendants gave rise to the instant suit.

The owner of the premises was Kolkata Port Trust. Lalita Sadhukhan was the tenant of Kolkata Port Trust. The original plaintiff took lease of the said premises form Lalita Sadhukhan. The original plaintiff gave sub-lease of the said premises to the Defendant No. 6 by a deed of sub-lease dated December 16, 1965 on and from February 9, 1965.

The Defendant No. 6 was a partnership firm of which Lakshan, Ram, Bharat, Manick, Ratan and Mangal Chandra Sadhukhan were the owners.

The sub-lease was in respect of Plot No. 161A, Premises No. 67/45 B, Stand Road, Kolkata. The sub-lease was for a period of 10 years commencing on and from June 29, 1964 at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- be paid on or before the 7th day of each succeeding Bengali Calendar month inclusive of all rates and taxes. The deed provided that, in the event the sub-lessees did not deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises on the expiry or sooner determination of the lease, the sub-lessees would be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 12.50 for each day until the sub-lessees were evicted in due course of law.

By a registered memorandum of agreement dated December 16, 1965 entered into between the same parties it was recorded that, the Defendant No. 6 was carrying on business at the demised premises and that, in lieu of the rent as mentioned in the deed of sub-lease the plaintiff would receive 50% of the net-profit of the business of the Defendant No. 6.

The plaintiffs claimed that, the defendants failed and neglected to give accounts. The plaintiffs also claimed that, the sub-lease expired by efflux of time. With the sub-lease expiring by efflux of time the plaintiff became entitled to immediate possession of the demised premises. The plaintiff caused issuance of two letters dated April 22, 1975 and April 28, 1975 calling upon the defendants to vacate the suit premises. The defendants replied through their Advocate’s letter dated May 11, 1975 claiming monthly tenancy under Lalita Sadhukhan. The defendants failed and neglected to make over vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the plaintiff. The defendants did not render accounts. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the present suit.

During the pendency of the instant suit, various parties died. Their heirs and legal representatives were duly brought on record.

Written statement on behalf of the defendants was filed. In such written statement the defendants contended that, the sub-lease was for a period of 10 years with an option to renew the sub-lease for a further period of 5 years. The deed of sub-lease as well as the memorandum of agreement dated December 16, 1965 was admitted. The defendant denied failure to submit true and faithful accounts to the plaintiff. They claimed that they offered inspection of all relevant books of the business of the Defendant No. 6 to the plaintiff. They claimed that, the original plaintiff took inspection of such accounts and of the relevant books of the Defendant No. 6. According to the defendants, the plaintiff granted receipts after inspecting the books of accounts of the Defendant No. 6. The claim of the plaintiffs that, no accounts of the Defendant No. 6 were furnished, according to the defendants, was without any basis. The defendants claimed that, the plaintiff from time to time received a sum of Rs.1,93,925.60p. Such sum was paid either to the plaintiff directly or to the Income Tax authorities for and on behalf of the plaintiff. There were large outstandings of the plaintiff to the Income Tax department. The defendants received notices from the Income Tax authorities on which they paid on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant also contended that, the plaintiff’s lease dated December 13, 1965 with the superior landlord expired on February 8, 1975. Consequently, the plaintiff ceased to be a lessee of