The provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 protect tenants’ rights irrespective of landlord's immunity under the Act.

1. The short point in this appeal is whether or not the provisions of S.13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 applied to the tenancy held by the defendant appellant under the plaintiff respondent in respect of two rooms in the north - eastern portion of the first floor of Premises No. 24B, Theatre Road, Calcutta.

2. On Aug. 4, 1962, the plaintiff respondent had obtained from the then owner, Anil Kumar Mitra, a lease for 21 years from 1st Sept. 1962 in respect of the northern portion of the first floor of the said 24B, Theatre Road. On 1st Nov. 1976 the plaintiff had inducted the defendant as a monthly tenant under him in respect of the disputed two room flat in north eastern portion of the said first floor covered by the aforesaid demise in plaintiffs favour dated the 4th Aug. 1962. According to the plaintiff, initially the said lease in favour of the defendant was for a term of 11 months which was extended from time to time and the last of such extensions had expired on June 30, 1978. The defendant having refused to vacate in spite of a notice dated 20th Mar. 1978 served upon him, the plaintiff had instituted the instant suit for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant and for recovery of damages.

3. The defendant contested the said suit by claiming inter alia that he was a monthly tenant and the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 applied and, therefore, except on any one of the grounds specified in S.13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 the plaintiff was not entitled to recover from the defendant possession of the disputed flat.

4. The learned Judge of the Seventh Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta by the judgment under appeal has upheld the plaintiff's claim that the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act did not apply to the tenancy held by the defendant inasmuch as the premises demised in plaintiff's favour by the superior lessor enjoyed immunity under S.3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned Judge of the court below has accordingly decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour.

5. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record, we reject the contentions for the first time raised in appeal on behalf of respondent that the defendant had never been a monthly tenant but he was a bare licensee. The plaintiff itself in the plaint had averred that it had inducted the defendant as a tenant. The terms of the tenancy held by the defendant were set out in para 6 of the plaint which, according to the plaintiff, inter alia, provided for determination by efflux of time limited by the letter of tenancy and as extended from time to time. At the trial, both parties proceeded on the basis that the defendant had been a tenant under the plaintiff but they were at variance on the question whether the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act applied to the said tenancy. No issue was raised by the plaintiff as to whether or not the defendant was a licensee. The learned Judge of the court below has delivered the judgment on the basis that the defendant had been a monthly tenant but has denied him protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on the ground that the lease of the first floor of the aforesaid premises granted by Mitra in plaintiff's favour was not subject to the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and therefore, the tenancy in defendant's favour of the two rooms out of the said demised property was also immune from the provisions of the .

6. Undisputedly, the registered lease dated 4th A