JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 28, 1995 passed by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 586 of 1986. 2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent for eviction of the appellants on the ground that a registered deed of lease was executed on March 10, 1966 between Sudhir Kumar Bose, the then owner of the property and Dhirendra Nath Sen, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 125/- per month for a period of 20 years commencing from March 1, 1966. The plaintiff/respondent purchased the said premises by a sale deed dated March 2, 1977 from the said Sudhir Kumar Bose. On the death of Dhirendra Nath Sen, the appellants became lessee under the respondent and the said lease having expired on February 28, 1986, the respondent was entitled to get a decree for eviction of the appellants as they did not vacate the suit property. 3. The said suit was contested by the present appellants thereby opposing the prayer of the respondent and the defence of the appellants was that after the expiry of the lease it was agreed between the parties that they would continue as usual as monthly tenants and accordingly the defendants paid rent for the month of March and April, 1986 to the plaintiff, who accepted the same but did not grant rent receipt for those months. 4. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the defence of the appellants and thus decreed the suit. 5. Being dissatisfied, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the instant first appeal. " 6. Mr. Mitra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants did not dispute the finding of fact arrived at by the learned trial Judge as regards the defence of the appellants that they paid rent but no receipt was granted by the landlord. Mr. Mitra has however raised a pure question of law which requires no investigation of new fact. According to Mr. Mr. Mitra has however raised a pure question of law which requires no investigation of new fact. According to Mr. Mitra, the lease deed having been admittedly executed on March 10, 1966 but the said lease having been given effect from March 1, 1966 for a period of 20 years from that day, the lease should be treated to be really a lease for less than 20 years. According to Mr. Mitra for all practical purposes it should be presumed that the lease was effective from the date of execution viz. March 10, 1966 and it ended with February 28, 1986, thus the same was limited for a period of 19 years 355 days. According to Mr. Mitra, in view of proviso to section 3(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,. the tenancy in question should be governed by the provision contained in West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and thus in the absence of any notice under section 13(6) of the aforesaid Act or in the absence of any grounds mentioned in section 13(1) thereof, the respondent was not entitled to evict the appellants. In support of such contention, Mr. Mitra has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Baneswar Pal vs. Nirmala Jyoti, reported in AIR 1979 Cal 396 . 7. Mr. Dasgupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has however refuted the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mitra and has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Ranjit Kumar Dutta vs. Tapan Kumar Shaw and Anr., in F.A. No. 149 of 1994 wherein in view of difference of opinion of two Judges of the Division Bench on a different point the matter was referred to a third Judge and the Hon'ble Third Judge (Vidyanand, J.) accepted the view of Sidheswar Narayan, J. But both Judges, according to Mr. Dasgupta, held that if a lease deed is executed on a date thereby giving effect of the said lease from an anterior date, such lease should be held valid from that anterior date. The decision of the Third Judge has been reported in AIR 1997 Cal 278 . We had also the opportunity of going through the separate judgments delivered by B.L. Jain and Sidheswar Narayan, JJ. which were placed before us. The decision of the Third Judge has been reported in AIR 1997 Cal 278 . We had also the opportunity of going through the separate judgments delivered by B.L. Jain and Sidheswar Narayan, JJ. which were placed before us. After going through those judgments it appears that a registered lease deed was executed and registered on October 8, 1956 and the same was for 15 years commencing from October 1, 1956 terminating with November 30, 1971. In the said case it was argued that the initial lease was less than a period of 15 years by relying upon the decision in the case of Baneswar Pal (supra) but inspite of that the Division Bench overruled the said .contention. After going through the aforesaid decision we find that although B.L. Jain, J. referred the decision of Baneswar Pal (supra) in the judgment but it was not specifically overruled. However, the fact remains that ultimately both the Judges of the Division Bench held that the said lease could not be construed to be a lease for less than 15 years and thus turned down the contention of the learned advocate for the tenants that the same was governed under the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as it stood at the time of execution of the lease deed. 8. Mr. Dasgupta next relies upon a Division Bench decision in the case of Nanda Rani Nath vs. Brojomohan Kundu and Anr., reported in AIR 1986 Cal 279 . In our opinion, the said decision cannot have any application to the fact of the present case. In the said decision a lease was executed on Bhadra, 1369 B.S. and was for a period of 15 years from first of Ashwin, 1369 B.S. till last day of Bhadra, 1384 B.S. It was contended on behalf of the tenants that the date of commencement of the lease should be excluded and as such the duration of the lease fell short of one day from 15 years. That point was overruled by the Division Bench. It appears from the said decision that case of Baneswar Pal vs. Nirmala Jyoti (supra) was placed before the Division Bench but the Division Bench distinguished the said decision as the fact of the same was different. Therefore, in our opinion, the said decision cannot be of any help to Mr. Dasgupta's client. 9. Mr. It appears from the said decision that case of Baneswar Pal vs. Nirmala Jyoti (supra) was placed before the Division Bench but the Division Bench distinguished the said decision as the fact of the same was different. Therefore, in our opinion, the said decision cannot be of any help to Mr. Dasgupta's client. 9. Mr. Dasgupta further submits that in this case the tenant was already put into the possession on March 1, 1966 and the deed of lease was executed on March 10, 1966 and as such it should be presumed that his tenancy commenced from March, 1966. Mr. Dasgupta further pointed out that the rent for the month of March, 1966 was paid on March 7, 1966 i.e. before the execution of the deed. 10. Even if we accept the aforesaid contention of Mr. Dasgupta the moment, on March 10, 1966 a registered deed of lease was executed, the previous tenancy from March 1, 1966 came to an end by way of implied surrender. Therefore, a new tenancy started from that date. 11. In other words, the tenant became a monthly tenant from March 1, 1966 under the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and rent for March, 1966 was paid on March 7, 1966. But thereafter a registered lease deed was executed on March 10, 1966. If the duration of the said lease was for a period of 20 years from March 10, 1966, Mr. Dasgupta could successfully argue that by virtue of such new tenancy, the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act except sections 31 and 36 thereof would not be applicable. But the registered lease executed on March 10, 1966 will be of no avail to the respondent because it was due to expire on February 28, 1986 thus falls short of 20 years. Thus, the new tenancy started on March 10, 1966 is also governed by the provision contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 12. In our opinion, in view of section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease can be effective either from the date of execution or from a date, specified in the body of lease provided such date is a future date. But if in a lease deed an anterior date is given, for all practical purposes, the relationship will commence from the date of execution thereof. But if in a lease deed an anterior date is given, for all practical purposes, the relationship will commence from the date of execution thereof. The anterior date can be taken into consideration only for the purpose of calculating the date of termination of lease. Therefore, in the instant case it should be presumed that the lease started from March 10, 1966 and came to an end on February 28, 1986 because 20 years time should be calculated from March 1, 1966 as provided in the lease deed. - If that be the position, the lease in question should be held to be one for less than 20 years and as such in view of proviso to section 3(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the tenancy should be governed by the provision contained in the aforesaid Act. In our opinion, if the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Ranjit Kuma, Dutta vs. Tapan Kumar Shaw and Anr. (supra) is accepted, in that event one can easily bypass the provision contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by executing a lease deed thereby giving its effect from anterior date and making it in reality for a period shorter than 20 years thus frustrating the provision of the Act. 13. We are therefore unable to accept the aforesaid contention of Mr. Dasgupta and the view taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision of Ranjit Kumar Dutta (supra), 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we refer the matter to the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench for the purpose of deciding the following points of disagreement: (A) If a registered deed of lease for a period of 20 years or above is executed by giving its effect from an anterior date thereby the effective period of lease from the date of execution falls short of 20 years, whether relationship created by such lease is governed by the provision contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act? (B) Whether section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act stands in the way of creating a relationship of lessor and lessee for more than one year from a period anterior to the date of execution of the registered deed of lease? 15. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice in terms of Chapter VII Rule 2 of the Appellate Side Rules. 15. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice in terms of Chapter VII Rule 2 of the Appellate Side Rules. Amit Talukdar, J.: I agree. Matter referred to a Larger Bench.