JUDGMENT R. Bhattacharya, J. This second appeal arises out of a title appeal allowed by a Subordinate Judge, Hooghly setting aside the judgement and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff who is the appellant before us. The scope of this second appeal before us is very limited as it now appears. The relevant fact briefly stated is that the plaintiff Ali Mahammad filed a suit for recovery of khas possession of the suit property, namely, a piece of land, area about 2.1/2 cottahs of which the defendant Sk. Golam Rahaman was a non-agricultural tenant. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant took oral lease from his father and the defendant made construction encroaching upon his land after the death of his father. He wanted to evict the defendant, but ultimately it was agreed that the defendant would take lease of the 2 cottahs of land previously held under his father and the plaintiff would grant that lease including the 1/2 cottahs of land with the structure made by the defendant. The deed of lease was signed by both the parties and it was meant for a period of 8 years starting from Magh, 1344 B.S. It was executed on 16th November, 1946. The case of the plaintiff is that after the expiry of the period of 8 years by efflux of time, the lease terminated and he was entitled to recover khas possession of the suit land. The defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. His case is that the plaintiff by giving a fresh lease allowed the right of the defendant in the matter of construction of a pucca structure which he set up previously before the lease and also during the subsistence of the lease he made a pucca structure. His main defence is that under S. 7(5) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 he is entitled to get protection against eviction because he has made pucca constructions on the suit land. The learned Munsif decreed the suit against that decision, in the appeal the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Hooghly set aside the judgement and the decree and allowed the appeal by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant. According to the learned Subordinate Judge the defendant is entitled to get protection. 2. The learned Munsif decreed the suit against that decision, in the appeal the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Hooghly set aside the judgement and the decree and allowed the appeal by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant. According to the learned Subordinate Judge the defendant is entitled to get protection. 2. Only one relevant question of law is required to be considered by us in the appeal as has been placed before us. The point is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the protection under S. 7(5) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act can be availed of by the defendant. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff appellant submits that according to the finding of the appellate court. the construction in question was made by the defendant prior to the taking of lease from the plaintiff in the year 1946 and therefore the defendant cannot take a shelter under S. 7(5) of the Act because according to Mr. Mukherjee that section speaks about construction of pucca structure during the subsistence of the lease and before the expiry of the same. Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the defendant respondent submits as against Mr. Mukherjee that there is nothing in S. 7(5) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act to indicate that the construction must be made during the subsistence of lease and his further argument is that in the deed itself when the plaintiff as landlord accepted the pucca construction of the suit land and allowed the same to continue and to be enjoyed by the defendant, certainly that will be taken as construction of the structure required under S. 7(5) of the Act. 3. Now let us consider, first of all, the S. 7(5) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act According to the sub-s. (5) the defendant will get protection if the landlord has allowed pucca structures to be erected on any non-agricultural land held under a lease in writing for a period stipulated therein and if that structure be erected before the expiry of the said period of lease. The evidence in this case proves that the plaintiff and the defendant both executed a deed of lease on 16th November, 1946 in respect of the suit land measuring about 2 1/2 cottahs at a rental of Rs. 5/- per year. It is stated in the deed Ext. The evidence in this case proves that the plaintiff and the defendant both executed a deed of lease on 16th November, 1946 in respect of the suit land measuring about 2 1/2 cottahs at a rental of Rs. 5/- per year. It is stated in the deed Ext. 1, that the defendant would be entitled to live in the structure made by brick walls and tiled roof and he had further the right to erect such constructions on the land in question. It has been proved, and there can be no doubt, that the structure in question was a pucca structure. The deed clearly says that the landlord accepted the right of the tenant defendant in the pucca structure already constructed prior to the execution of the lease deed and the tenant was further given the right to make such pucca structures during the subsistence of the lease. Now the question is whether this statement in the deed will give protection to the tenant under S. 7(5) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. As we have already noticed that sub-s. (5) says that if the landlord has allowed pucca structures to be erected held under the lease in writing for a specified period and if the construction is made before the expiry of the said period, that tenant will get protection against eviction under certain circumstances. There can be no doubt that in the instant case the plaintiff landlord allowed by the deed itself the pucca structure already constructed by the defendant on the suit land and there can be no doubt also that the pucca structure was constructed before the expiry of the period of lease. There is no restrictive clause in the section that unless the tenant makes construction during the subsistence of the lease, he will not get protection against eviction. The language of the section is quite clear that the construction must have to be made before the expiry of the period of lease. Here the evidence shows that the pucca structure on the suit land was constructed before the expiry of the lease and before the grant of lease even. The evidence further shows that the landlord allowed such pucca structure as constructed by the defendant. Here the evidence shows that the pucca structure on the suit land was constructed before the expiry of the lease and before the grant of lease even. The evidence further shows that the landlord allowed such pucca structure as constructed by the defendant. In this view of the matter, the defendant is entitled to get protection against eviction when the plaintiff allowed pucca structures to be erected before the expiry of the term of lease. 4. There is another point to be considered. The landlord knowing fully well about the construction of the pucca structure by the tenant defendant, granted the lease and allowed that pucca structure which was already in existence to continue. The question would be whether sub-s. (5) of S. 7 read with clause (a) thereto will give protection to the tenant. Now as soon as the landlord allowed pucca structure already in existence on the leased land by the deed of lease itself, it will tantamount to the pucca structure erected on the land itself during the continuance of the said lease. And it may be taken for all practical purposes that the landlord allowed pucca structures to be erected by the tenant and when the structure was held in existence at the time of lease that was certainly constructed before the expiration of the lease. In this connection we may refer to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.L. Dalima & Co. & ors. v. Chinta Haran Mukherjee & Ors, reported in 62 CWN at page 505. In that case a piece of land was taken lease of by the tenant from the landlord on which there was a pucca structure belonging to the landlord and during the subsistence of the period of lease which was certainly for a stated period, the tenant purchased the same from the landlord. In that case the question arose whether in the circumstances, as stated, the tenant could take shelter under S. 7(5) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. Mr. Justice Renupada Mukherjee held that the landlord assent to the continuance of the pucca structures on the tenant's holding after purchase by him was clear and unequivocal and he was of the opinion that the tenants would get benefit of S. 7(5) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act when structures were found pucca, as defined in the Act itself. Justice Renupada Mukherjee held that the landlord assent to the continuance of the pucca structures on the tenant's holding after purchase by him was clear and unequivocal and he was of the opinion that the tenants would get benefit of S. 7(5) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act when structures were found pucca, as defined in the Act itself. That was a case worse than the present before us. In that case on the demised land the pucca structure belonged to the landlord himself and it was purchased by the tenant during the subsistence of the tenancy. And it was held that it fell under the protection given in sub-s. (5) of S. 7 of the Act. In the present case the pucca construction was made by the tenant himself and that was prior to the expiry of the lease and the landlord allowed such pucca structure already constructed by the tenant. Therefore there can be least doubt whatsoever that the present case before us clearly comes under S. 7(5) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act to give protection to the defendant tenant. The appeal has been rightly allowed by the learned appellate court below and we find no reason to interfere with the decision. The present appeal is liable to be dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal. But there will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J: I agree. Appeal dismissed.