A tenant's claim of perpetual tenancy requires a registered lease under Section 107; absence of such deed invalidates the claim and allows eviction under the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. Both the Courts below have decided the case against this appellant.

2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for ejectment and mesne profit against the defendant in respect of suit property which is a shop room. It is said by the plaintiff that the defendant has been occupying the shop room as a tenant for monthly rental of Rs. 88/- payable according to English calendar month. The defendant stopped to pay the monthly rent since the month of April 2012 and also damaged the suit premises by keeping it under lock and key for a long time. Moreover, the said shop room is required by the plaintiff as his son intends to start a business therein. A notice of ejectment was sent to the defendant by the plaintiff by registered post with acknowledgment due card on 25.08.2024 asking the defendant to quit and vacate the suit premises by the last day of October, 2014. The defendant accepted the notice on 19.09.2014 despite that he did not quit and vacate the suit premises. As such the suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for eviction.

3. The defendant entered appearance in this case and contested the same by taking plea that the suit is not maintainable as the suit premises is governed by the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by the notification dated 19.09.2008 issued by the State Government wherein the suit mouza i.e. Gobindopur is said to be governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The another stand point of the defendant is that there is a tenancy agreement in between them wherein it was agreed between the parties that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises forever and the heirs of the plaintiff would not be capable of evicting him from the suit premises except on the ground if he would be unable to pay rent for consecutive three months only then he shall be evicted from the suit premises. It is said by the defendant that the terms of the agreement have to be followed and the plaintiff has no right to file the suit for eviction against him.

4. The another point which was taken by the defendant that the notice of eviction which was sent to him was erroneous wherein defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises by the end of September, 2014 the notice sent by the plaintiff was received by him on 19.09.2014 and as such requisite time for evicting the suit premises as enumerated in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not given to him. For that reason the notice sent to him by the plaintiff is erroneous.

5. The suit shop room is admittedly situated under the mouza Gobindopur and the area on which the suit shop room situates is under the panchayat area. Although the defendant claims that the suit premises is governed by the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by extended notification issued by the State Government but no such notification was filed before the Court. In support of his contention plaintiff filed panchayat tax receipts before the Trial Court which were marked as Exibits 4 which indicate that the suit premises is situated within the gram panchayat area. The defendant also filed panchayat tax receipt which was marked as Exhibit C indicating that the suit mouza is situated within the pancayat area. So, it can be said that the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has not been extended to the area where the suit property situates. As such the suit for eviction under the Transfer of Property Act is quite maintainable.

6. The another stand point of the defendant is that there is an agreement in between both the parties wherein his tenancy in the suit premises would be treated as a perpetual tenancy and thus t