JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

1. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2002 as passed by learned 8th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit no. 3021 of 1996 whereby and where under the said Court by the impugned judgment decreed the said suit for eviction of the defendant on contest and also passed a preliminary decree for mense profit in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.1350/- with effect from 1989 till the vacant possession is restored. By the self same judgment learned trial court also granted a liberty to the plaintiff to pray for final decree of mense profit at the aforementioned rate on payment of requisite court fees. The defendant felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant appeal.

2. For effective adjudication of the instant appeal, the facts leading to filing of Title Suit no. 3021/1996 before the learned trial court is required to be dealt with in a nutshell.

3. Before the learned trial court it is the plaint case that in respect of the suit property, particulars of which has been described in the schedule of the plaint, the plaintiff is the owner of the same and when the defendant in his distress approached the plaintiff to allow him temporarily to occupy the suit property as a licensee, the plaintiff granted leave and licence in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property at a monthly licence fee of Rs.1050/- excluding the service charge of Rs.300/- per month with effect from 1st November, 1978 till September 1979. It is the further plaint case that thereafter the defendant started to occupy the suit property as a licensee by paying a monthly licence fee together with service charge, charges for fittings and fixtures, gas and electric connection, etc. and even after the expiry of period of 11 months as per request of the defendant, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy the suit property as a licensee for some more months and at that time it was committed by the defendant that very soon he would make arrangement for his accommodation elsewhere and he would vacate the suit property as and when asked for by the plaintiff.

4. It is the further plaint case that thereafter the defendant inspite of repeated request made by the plaintiff did not vacate the suit property and even stopped paying licence fee and other charges as mentioned above and finding no other alternative the plaintiff revoked the licence of the defendant on April 15, 1988 and asked the defendant to vacate the suit property with the expiry of May1988. It has also been averred by the plaintiff before the learned trial court in his plaint that even after receipt of the said notice the defendant failed and neglected to comply with the requisition of the said notice and remained in wrongful possession of the suit property without handing over the same to the plaintiff and thus, finding no other alternative the plaintiff approached the learned trial court with a prayer for decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit property and recovery of khas and vacant possession of the same, for damages, for mense profits, for costs and for other ancillary reliefs.

5. The said suit was duly contested by the defendant by filing his written statement. In the written statement, apart from denying each and every allegation as made by the plaintiff in his plaint, the defendant took the following defence:-

(i) He occupied the suit property as a monthly tenant and accordingly; his tenancy is governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1956.

(ii) He had paid licence fee up to May 1991, by cheques and drafts along with covering letters.

(iii) He had paid all other charges including electrical bills standing in the names of the plaintiff till February 1997.

(iv) On account of refusal by the plaintiff to accept rent, he started depositing the monthly rent in respect of the suit property from June1991 with the office of the Rent Controller and he is still depositing the same.

(v) No notice purpo