BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a tenant defendant in. a Suit for eviction on the ground of expiry of lease of twenty-one years and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th March, 2003 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title suit No. 397 of 2003 thereby passing a decree for eviction and mesne profit in favour of the respondent. ( 2 ) THE case made out by the respondent may be summed up thus: (a) One Dinendra Nath Auddy, the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and by a registered deed of trust and settlement dated 13th October, 1969, the said Dinendra Nath Auddy created a trust in respect of the suit premises whereby he appointed himself as the first trustee and it was further provided that on the death of the first trustee and his wife the trust would come to an end and the plaintiff would become the absolute owner of the property. (b) By a registered deed of lease dated 10th April, 1972 the said Dinendra nath Auddy created a lease in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant for a period of 21 years. (c) The said Dinendra Nath Auddy died on 22nd April, 2001 and his wife also died earlier on 12th August, 1986 and thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property. (d) The lease having come to an end on the expiry of 21 years on 9th april, 1993 but in spite of expiry of its terms, the defendant having failed to vacate and hand over possession of the property, the suit was filed. ( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The specific defence of the defendant was that the lease dated 10th April, 1972 was a defective one due to wrong description of name of the partners and after the death of the original lessor, on the request of the plaintiff, the rate of rent was enhanced and as such, by acceptance of enhanced rent from time to time, a new tenancy has been created. ( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials-on-record came to the conclusion that there was a valid deed of lease of 21 years between the predecessor of the plaintiff and the defendant and in view of expiry of the terms thereof the suit was liable to be decreed. ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present first appeal. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant at the first instance tried to impress upon us that the suit is not maintainable as the names of the partners were not mentioned in the cause title. ( 7 ) IN our view, the provisions contained in the Order 30 of the Code of Civil procedure are the answer to aforesaid question. As provided in the said provisions, in case of a suit where the defendant is a partnership firm, there is no necessity of mentioning the names of the individual partners and that the suit can be brought against the name of the partnership firm. ( 8 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant next contended that by enhancement of rent the previous lease was surrendered and a fresh tenancy was created. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials-on-record we find that on the basis of lease-deed 1972 the defendant was inducted and it was specifically provided that the rate of rent would be Rs. 80/- a month and the lessee is required to bear the proportionate rate of municipal rates during the subsistence of the tenancy. It is now a settled law that merely because there was some enhancement of rent, such fact by itself does not imply creation of a new tenancy after surrender of the earlier one and when the stipulations mentioned in the lease-deed itself provide for proportionate increase of rate with the increase of municipal taxes, the question of implied surrender or novation of contract or creation of new tenancy would not arise. [see: Savita Dey vs. Nageswar Mazumdar and Anr. , reported in 1995 (6) SCC 274 . ] In the case before us, it is asserted by the lessor that in addition to the rent fixed by the terms, a further amount of Rs. 70/- is realised as a service charge. [see: Savita Dey vs. Nageswar Mazumdar and Anr. , reported in 1995 (6) SCC 274 . ] In the case before us, it is asserted by the lessor that in addition to the rent fixed by the terms, a further amount of Rs. 70/- is realised as a service charge. No suggestion has been given to the plaintiff in cross-examination, that no service has been provided to the lessee justifying imposition of service charge; on the other hand the specific defence of the defendant was that no deed was at all executed by the defendant. Therefore, if any amount is realised by the lessor for providing some actual service to the lessee for that reason we cannot conclude that the lease for 21 years has been impliedly surrendered. We, thus, find no substance in the aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant. ( 10 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant lastly contended that as a condition of stay of execution case on the basis of the order passed by this Court, his client has deposited huge amount of money in the Trial Court and direction should be given for return of that amount. He further contends that his client also deposited some amount to the Rent Controller. So far the amount deposited in the suit pursuant to the order passed by this Court, we make it clear that the said amount will be adjusted at the time of considering the question of assessment of mesne profits in terms of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 11 ) AS regards the money deposited with the Rent Controller is concerned, we are of the view that it is for the appellant to approach the Rent Controller for withdrawing of the amount if they unnecessarily deposited such amount before the Rent Controller. ( 12 ) WE, thus, find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.