The dominant intention in lease agreements is critical in determining whether a lease pertains to a business or merely a premises tenancy under applicable tenancy laws.

1. This appeal by grant of special leave has been filed by Defendant 1, the appellant herein, against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Calcutta. By the impugned judgment the High Court has restored the decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits with regard to Plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs/original Respondents 1 and 2 (since deceased and now represented by their legal representatives), setting aside the judgment of the appellate court in Title Appeal No. 52 of 1976 and restoring that of the Trial Court.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:

One Hangeswar alias Narendra Nath Singha on 4-2-1936 obtained settlement/lease hold interest for 'A' schedule property i.e. Premises No. 77, Benaras Road, Howrah admeasuring 3. bighas including a tank from Sear Sole Raj Estate. He raised certain constructions including sheds on 'B' schedule property, a part of 'A' schedule property and set up an iron casting foundry under the name and style of D. L. Singha and Company, which was run by him till his death. After his death on 31-5-1954, his legal heirs, original Respondents 1 and 2 settled the whole karobar (business) of iron casting foundry along with land and all fittings and fixtures in favour of one Kalipada Mondal and Bahar Bala Dassi on 27-7-1954, for a period of five years starting with the month of Baisakha 1361 Bangabda Samvat (for short "BS") (Bangla year) to Chaitra 1365 BS at a monthly rent of Rs 466.3 annas. By successive transfers, interest of original lessees/settlees came to be acquired by the appellant on 18-1-1956 (AD). Settlement in favour of the appellant came to an end by efflux of time in Chaitra 1365 BS, equivalent to 13-4-1959. The appellant failed to vacate the 'B' schedule property as well as to pay the rent after 1363 BS.

3. Original Plaintiffs 1 and 2 instituted Suit No. 11 of 1959 against the appellant but the same was withdrawn due to some formal defects with liberty to file a fresh suit. After the withdrawal of the said suit, the appellant trespassed over 'C' schedule property i.e. remaining 'A' schedule property consisting of a tank and its three banks. The appellant filled up the tank, raised certain structures thereon and extended its work over the said property.

4. The plaintiff Respondents 1 and 2, feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the appellant, instituted the present Suit No. 65 of 1965 for recovery of possession of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and for mesne profits. The appellant in the written statement, inter alia denied the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property as well as existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The allegation that the appellant had trespassed over 'C' schedule property was denied.

5. The Subordinate Court decreed the suit with respect to both 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. It was held that 'C' schedule property was not let out to the appellant and the appellant had taken possession of the same by committing trespass. That relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties with regard to 'B' schedule property. It was held that the predecessors in interest of the appellant became tenant of the premises by virtue of settlement of karkhana (factory) together with the land underneath in their favour. The appellant having stepped into their shoes was estopped under S.116 of the Indian Evidence Act from disputing the title of the plaintiffs. The settlement came to an end by efflux of time on 13-4-1959. There was no necessity to determine the tenancy by issuing a notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act . Service of notice under S.13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short "the