The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting the substance of an agreement over its form, considering the intention of the parties, and applying the common law principle of justice, equity, and good conscience in determining the nature of the agreement and the rights of the parties.

JUDGMENT

Soumen Sen, J. - The second appeal has come up for admission.

We have recorded in earlier order dated 14.02.2022 that the learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the second appeal itself can be disposed of on the basis of the available records and the pleadings made available to this court by the parties. They have consented to second appeal being heard out along with connected application on merits in presence of the opposite party.

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 2018 passed by the additional District Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Other appeal No.30 of 2016 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 19th December, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur in Other Suit No.65/2009 heard analogously with Other Suit No.123/2009.

This decree of reversal has been assailed in this second appeal.

In view of the fact that the second appeal is required to be admitted only on substantial question/questions of law. We have invited the appellant to address us on the substantial question/questions of law involved in the second appeal.

Before we refer to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we feel it necessary to summarize the facts in order to appreciate the argument advanced by Mr. aniruddha Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal.

There are two suits disposed of by the learned Trial Judge. The two suits were heard analogously.

Sri arun Kumar Pattanayak filed a suit being suit no. 65 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'first suit') for declaration of tenancy along with other consequential reliefs. The respondent filed a suit being suit no. 123 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'second suit') praying for recovery of khas possession and other consequential reliefs.

In the second suit the plaintiff contended that the father of the plaintiff inducted Sri arun Kumar Pattanayak as tenant in respect of the Schedule 'Ka' property at a monthly rent of Rs.600/- per month for a period of five years commencing from March, 1994 to 31st March, 1999. Subsequently, the said period of tenancy was orally extended till 31st March, 2001. Thereafter, the father of the plaintiff became ill and a fresh agreement was executed on 15th June, 1999 with regard to the extension of tenancy and the plaintiff signed the said deed of agreement on behalf of his father. after the expiry of the said period another tenancy agreement for two years commencing from 1st april, 2001 to 31st March, 2003 was executed. The said agreement was signed by the brother of the plaintiff on behalf of their father. Subsequently, on 5th December, 2002, the father of the plaintiff died. after the demise of the plaintiff's father, Sri arun Kumar Pattanayak requested the brother and the mother of the plaintiff to execute another tenancy agreement for two years in respect of the suit premises after expiry of the aforesaid tenancy on 31st March, 2003. The said proposal was accepted and a fresh tenancy agreement on 1st april, 2003 was executed. Subsequently, a partition suit being No. T.S. 47/2005 was filed in respect of the joint properties of the heirs of deceased Nirmal Chandra Das, the father of the plaintiff in the second suit. The defendant was asked to vacate the suit premises after the expiry of the tenancy on 31st March, 2005. However, a new tenancy agreement in respect of the suit premises for the period 1st april, 2005 to 31st March, 2007 was executed. at the time of execution of the agreement, the plaintiff informed the defendant that they would not let out the suit premises for any further period after expiry of the tenancy on 31st March, 2007.

On expiry, the plaintiff requested Sri Pattanayak to vacate the suit premises. at that time Sri Pattanayak requested the plaintiff for further extension of the period on a plea that some time would be required for him to get a Drug licence from the Drug Control office fo