JUDGMENT : P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal is by Special Leave from the Judgment of the High Court at Calcutta, dated 10th May, 1965, which affirmed the Judgment of the Trial Court and that the appellant Court. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant; and an appeal against it was equally unsuccessful. The suit originally was filed by the appellant's predecessor as Shehbait of a debettor ejectment and for the recovery of possession of suit land with the structures situated thereon. During the course of the proceedings plaintiff died and the appellant was substituted in his placed as Shebait. The case of the plaintiff Chandra Sekhar Pan was that the suit properties with its structures were leased out to the defendant respondents on a yearly rent of Rs. 247-9-10 for a period of 5 years under a registered Kabuliyat dated 24th March, 1948 executed in favour of Chandra Sekhar Pan Shebait which was followed immediately by a registered Patta executed in his favour by the said Chandra Sekhar Pan. The rent of the 5 years which was exclusive of Road and Education cess was paid in advance and it was agreed under the said Kabuliyat that after the expiry of the period of lease the respondent, without any notice, would vacate and deliver possession of the land and structures. As the respondent did not vacate the land the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and possession. The respondent took up the plea that the relationship between the parties was governed by the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act 1949 or by the West Bengal (Premises) Rent Control Act 1950, that the lease was not valid and operative and that consequently the tenancy did not terminate on the expiry of the lease but continue to subsist an no notice to terminate was served on him. It was also contended that under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1953 the rent receiving interest of the appellants had vested in the State of West Bengal, as such the appellants had no locus standi to continue the suit. It was also contended that under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1953 the rent receiving interest of the appellants had vested in the State of West Bengal, as such the appellants had no locus standi to continue the suit. The Trial Court held that the Kabuliyat which was executed only by the lessee was hit by the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and that as the lease which was for a period exceeding one year could be treated as valid for the first year and thereafter it could be treated as a tenancy from month to month, notice to quit had to be given before terminating the tenancy. The contention that though the Kabuliyat was inadmissible in evidence, it could be looked into for collateral purposes was also rejected. In this view the tenancy was held to subsist on the question whether the rent receiving interest is vested in the State of West of Bengal under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, it was held that the suit property being debettor property there was no limit to retain khas lands by the Diety, but as the tenancy of the defendant continued for want of a notice, the plaintiff cannot he said to be in possession of the land before it vested in the State, and accordingly he had no locus standi. The first Appellate Court as we said earlier confirmed the decree. In appeal before the High Court at Calcutta also similar contentions were urged only to be repelled. While dismissing the appeal leave under clause 15 of the Letters Patent was refused. 2. Before us it is contended that the learned Judge was not right in stating that the defendant material defence was that he was protected under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act 1949 while in fact it was not only the respondent's case that that Act applies but also in any case the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provision) Act 1950 applies. The stand taken by the respondent was that whether having regard to the averment that there were structures on the land, the lease is treated as coming under the latter Act as non-agricultural land or coming under the former Act or even under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, notice to quit has to be given before the tenancy can be terminated; as such when no definite finding is given that the lease comes under the one or the other of the Acts, to hold that it falls under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act 1949 would gravely prejudice the proprietary interest of the Debttor. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant firstly that inasmuch as the property was Debttor property and which is a religious endowment, the provisions of the Act do not apply; secondly that even otherwise there being structures on the land it is governed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provision) Act 1950. It is true that the respondents had in para 7 of the Written Statement urged firstly that non-Agricultural Lands Act will apply and in any case it is governed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provision) Act 1950. The only issue in respect of this contention before the Trial Court was "Is the right of defendant No. 1 still subsisted. 2 Can it be determined without notice". This issue no doubt would take in the omission to give notice under either of the Acts or even under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act because once it was held that the terms of the Kubuliyat cannot be looked into under any of the provisions of the respective Acts and that no notice to terminate was given, the right of the tenancy would subsist. The High Court no doubt did not consider the other question as to whether the plaintiff had locus standi to continue the suit in view of the provisions of Act 1 of 1954 or the question whether the Buildings and Rent Control Act applies. The High Court no doubt did not consider the other question as to whether the plaintiff had locus standi to continue the suit in view of the provisions of Act 1 of 1954 or the question whether the Buildings and Rent Control Act applies. The first Appellate Court also it is contended did not advert to the question as to which Act having regard to the evidence in the case applies, but only contended itself with the question whether the tenancy subsisted by reason of the omission to give notice and its answer was that it did. This conclusion no doubt can be based on the application of any of the Acts referred to above. It appears that the land was leased out for a brick kiln and it is contended that there is a pacca building built of bricks which would bring it within the ambit of the Building and Rent Control Act, whether the contention is valid or not the respondent understood the allegation of the plaintiffs raising the plea that Act applies because he urged before the Trial Court as well as in this Court in his Statement of the Case that in any case that Act applies. In our view as there has been no finding as to whether the Bengal Rent Court Act 1950 applies it will be unnecessary to go into that question in this appeal. That question is kept open. The judgment of the High Court can be sustained in the view it took that tenancy subsists for want of notice to terminate and that can be under either of the Acts. 3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.