JUDGMENT :

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit/Case no.08 of 2007.

2. The plaintiffs’ case was that they are the trustees of the Kumar Pramatha Nath Roy Public Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as the said Trust). The premises no.4, Grant Street & 9, Lenin Sarani (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) are subject properties of the said Trust and are being administered by the trustees. The object of the trust is to provide financial support to the poor and needy and for other charitable works. The then trustees of the said Trust by a registered lease deed executed on 29th day of January, 1989 granted lease of the said premises, which are situated within one compound, to the defendants, namely, Jawed Shakil and Fuad Ahmed for a period of five years commencing from the 1st day of February, 1989 and expiring on 31st day of January, 1994 at a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. The said lease expired on 31st January, 1994 but the defendants failed and/or neglected to vacate the suit premises and/or handover possession of the same to the plaintiffs on the expiry of the aforesaid period. The plaintiffs on various occasions requested the defendants to vacate and handover possession of the suit premises and the defendants promised to vacate the premises but repeatedly sought for time to handover the possession to the plaintiffs on the ground of personal inconvenience. The defendants went on paying rent month by month and the same was enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month. Since the aforesaid lease was for a period of five years and created prior to commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (in short, the 1997 Act), the tenancy was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (in short, the 1956 Act). However, on expiry of the aforesaid period of lease and since the plaintiffs also accepted the rent from the defendants, the defendants continued to be monthly tenants under the plaintiffs as per the 1956 Act and thereafter on promulgation of the 1997 Act, they became tenants under the said 1997 Act. After commencement of the 1997 Act, the defendants illegally sublet and/or parted with possession of the various portions of the suit premises to several sub-tenants without written consent of the plaintiffs and without written intimation to the plaintiffs.

3. In the plaint it was further averred that the defendants/appellants herein had neglected to pay proportionate share of Municipal Tax to the tune of Rs.2,19,210/- (in respect of premises no.4, Grant Street) outstanding since 19th April, 2006 and a sum of Rs.2,17,056/- (in respect of premises no.9, Lenin Sarani). Since several sub-tenants approached the plaintiffs/respondents herein for accepting them as direct tenants and since arrear Municipal Tax was lying outstanding and since the property was not properly being maintained by the appellants, the respondents initially acceded to such proposal. Subsequently, the respondents filed a suit being Title Suit No.285 of 2004 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta and obtained an order of injunction. The said suit is still pending.

4. The respondents further contended that the appellants failed and neglected to effect repairing of the suit premises. They constructed various stalls in the passages of the premises obstructing free ingress and egress thereof and closed the entry to the suit premises and let out shops therein and even allowed storing of hazardous articles. Accordingly, the appellants’ tenancy was determined by a notice to quit and vacate dated 21st August, 2006. The said notice was duly served upon the appellant no.1 and the notice addressed to the appellant no.2 returned with postal endorsement ‘left’. In spite of the service of the aforesaid notice the appellants failed and neglected to vacate the suit premises hence this suit under S