JUDGMENT Bhattacharya, J. This first appeal is at the instance of a tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 25, 1989 passed by the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1379 of 1980 thereby passing a decree for eviction in favour of the respondents. 2. There is no dispute that there was a registered deed of lease dated June 19, 1959 for a period of 21 years. On the expiry of the said period of 21 years, the aforesaid Title Suit was filed by the respondents for eviction on the ground of efflux of 21 years. 3. The aforesaid suit was contested by the appellant by filling written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and the defence of the appellant was that the tenancy is governed by the provisions contained in West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and as such in the absence of any notice under Section 13(6) of the aforesaid Act and in the absence of any ground mentioned in Section 13(1) thereby the suit was not maintainable. 4. By the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal, the learned trial Judge has turned down the contention of the appellant and has decreed the suit on the ground of expiry of lease. 5. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has preferred the instant appeal. 6. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon Clauses 2 and 10 of the lease deed wherein the lessee was given right at any time after the expiry of six months from the date of commencement of the lease to terminate the tenancy by giving one calendar month notice in writing to the landlord and contended that in view of the aforesaid Clauses, the lease cannot be said to be a lease for a fixed term. Mr. Mukherjee contends that the said lease can be divided into two parts. Firstly, it was for a fixed period of six months but after the period of six months, lessee having been given right to terminate the lease at any point of time, it cannot be said that the lease can be for a fixed period of 21 years. Therefore, Mr. Mukherjee contends that the lease being not one for a fixed term, is governed by the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Therefore, Mr. Mukherjee contends that the lease being not one for a fixed term, is governed by the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 7. in support of such contention Mr. Mukherjee relies upon two decision, one in the case of (1) Lal Chand v. Radha Ballav reported in AIR 1959 Rajasthan page 240, and the other in the case of (2) Khuda Bux v. Sheo Din reported in ILR 8 Allahabad page 405. 8. In our view, the principles laid down in those decisions cannot have any application to the fact of the present case. In the aforesaid two decision, it has been held that if a kabuliat fixes a specified period for tenancy for a number of years and at the same time, provides for ejectment of the lessee on notice at any time, the term of years fixed in the kabuliat falls to the ground and the kabuliat should be treated as creating a month to month tenancy. In other words, if there is a Clause in the lease deed authorising the lessor to terminated the tenancy at any time before the period fixed, the tenancy should be treated as monthly tenancy. 9. In the instant case, there is no Clause authorising the lessor to terminate at his will before 21 years; therefore, those decisions cannot be availed of by the defendant. 10. In this case, the lease of 21 years having been executed prior to August 24, 1965 although the lease contained a Clause making it terminable at any time after six months from the date of execution, the appellant cannot get the benefit of West Bengal Premises Tenancy, (Amendment) Ordinance, 1965 and as such the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has no application to the tenancy in question. Therefore, this appeal is without any substance and is dismissed with costs which we assess at 200 Gms. Talukdar, J. : I agree.