Judgment :- (1.) SEEKING decrees for recovery of possession of the suit property and mesne profits the plaintiff instituted the suit on August 18th, 2005. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement on November 19th, 2005. By order dated February 27th, 2006 prayer for amendment of the written statement was allowed, and the amended written statement was filed. (2.) THE plaintiffs case is this. It is the owner of premises No. 6, Lyons Range, kolkata700001. By and under an agreement dated August 31st, 1987 it let out to the defendant a portion measuring about 10855 sq. ft. of the third floor of the premises. The monthly rent payable at the rate of Rs. 7 per sq. ft. was Rs. 75,985. According to the agreement, the defendant was to increase the monthly rent by 10% every three years during the first nine years of the tenancy, and thereafter by mutual discussion on the basis of the market rate of rent existing in the locality of the suit property. Although the defendant increased rent at the rate of 10% and thus the monthly rent payable at the ninth year became Rs. 91,941. 85, in spite of repeated requests and demands it failed and neglected to increase the rent thereafter according to the terms and conditions of the agreement. By a notice dated May 19th, 2005 issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 it determined the tenancy effective on the expiry of the month of June 2005, and called upon the defendant to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property. Even after receiving the notice, the defendant did not vacate the suit property and deliver possession thereof, but continued to remain in wrongful possession and occupation thereof. The tenancy having been determined lawfully, it became entitled to recover possession of the suit property and also to claim and get mesne profits from July 1st, 2005 at the rate of Rs. 18,091. 66 per diem, the amount being the reasonable letting out value of the suit property or a like property in the vicinity. (3.) THE defendants case is this. The suit is not maintainable, and this Court has no jurisdiction to try it. The plaintiff has no cause of action. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It has been using the suit property for office purpose. (3.) THE defendants case is this. The suit is not maintainable, and this Court has no jurisdiction to try it. The plaintiff has no cause of action. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It has been using the suit property for office purpose. According to terms and conditions of the agreement dated august 31st, 1987 it increased the rent, and regularly paid it. The tenancy is regulated by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 that came into force with effect from July 10th, 2001. Although it was always agreeable to increase the rent to a justified, reasonable and rational extent, the adamant plaintiff moved the writ Court and obtained an order directing its chairman-cum-managing director to consider the plaintiffs representation regarding increase in the rent. Accordingly, the authority heard the plaintiff and gave a decision dated November 26th, 1999 fixing the increased rent payable per month. The plaintiff challenged the decision by filing another writ petition, and by order in that the authoritys decision was set aside, and liberty was granted to the plaintiff to take steps for increase in the rent. Having failed to get the rent increased, the plaintiff became vindictive, and instituted the suit. The tenancy was never determined in accordance with law. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit. (4.) BY order dated July 20th, 2007 the following issues were framed and recorded: " (1) Is the case maintainable in its present form ? (2) Has the plaintiff any cause of action in filing this suit ? (3) Has the Court the pecuniary jurisdiction in trying the instant suit ? (4) Is the defendant a monthly premises tenant under the plaintiff in terms of agreement dated August 31, 1987 ? (5) Did the plaintiff serve notice to quit upon the defendant and whether the same is legal and valid ? (6). Is the plaintiff entitled to the decree as prayed for ? (7) To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" (5.) THE plaintiff examined its employee Haridas Chatterjee, who proved the original tenancy agreement dated August 31st, 1987, Ex A and the section 106 notice dated May 19th, 2005 terminating the tenancy, the postal receipt, and the two postal acknowledgement cards dated May 20th, 2005, Ex B collectively. (7) To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" (5.) THE plaintiff examined its employee Haridas Chatterjee, who proved the original tenancy agreement dated August 31st, 1987, Ex A and the section 106 notice dated May 19th, 2005 terminating the tenancy, the postal receipt, and the two postal acknowledgement cards dated May 20th, 2005, Ex B collectively. The defendant did not examine any witness, but Ex 1, the decision of its chairman-cum-managing director dated November 26th, 1999, was admitted as its documentary evidence by consent of the plaintiff. Arguments commenced on July 3rd, 2008. Further arguments resumed on July 7th, 2008 when Mr Bose, counsel for the defendant, invited me to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Considering his submissions, I wanted Mr Sana, counsel for the plaintiff, to take instructions from his client, and adjourned further hearing until today. When the suit was called on today Mr Saha informed me that at this distance of time and stage of the case the persons controlling and managing the affairs of the plaintiff could not agree to initiate any talk of amicable settlement with the defendant. This being the position, i decided to conclude hearing, and accordingly heard counsel for the parties. (6.) THE tenancy agreement has been duly proved. As a matter of fact, the defendant has not questioned its genuineness or the correctness of the terms and conditions contained in it. While Mr Mitra, senior counsel for the plaintiff, has argued that the tenancy, not regulated by the provisions of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, having been duly determined by giving notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, plaintiff is entitled to get the decrees for recovery of possession and mesne profits, Mr bose has said that he is not pressing issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 5. This being the position, it is not necessary for me to decide these issues, which must be answered in the affirmative; and accordingly, I hold that the suit is maintainable; that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action for filing it; that this Court had and has jurisdiction to entertain and try it; and that the duly served section 106 notice determining the tenancy is legal and valid. (7.) THE issue that requires examination and decision is whether the defendant is a monthly premises tenant under the plaintiff in terms of the agreement dated August 31st, 1987. There is no dispute that the defendant was a tenant entitled to get the protections of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956 that was repealed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1997, section 45. Section 3 (f) of this Act provides that nothing contained therein shall apply to any premises let out for non-residential purpose, which carries more than Rs. 10,000 as monthly rent in the areas included within the limits of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. This means that the tenancy is not regulated by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and that it is governed only by the provisions of the Transfer of Property act, 1882. Hence issue No. 4 must be answered in the negative; that is, the defendant is not a monthly premises tenant entitled to get statutory protections against eviction. (8.) THE tenancy could be determined by the plaintiff by issuing a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The notice under that section was issued on May 19th, 2005, and from the acknowledgement cards produced and proved by the plaintiff it is clear that it was duly received by the defendant. The quit notice has also been produced and proved. The quit notice, the postal receipt, and the acknowledgment cards all have been collectively marked Ex B. In view of the notice the tenancy stood determined on June 30th, 2005. Admittedly, the defendant did not put the plaintiff into possession of the property. Hence I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to get decrees for recovery of possession of the suit property and mesne profits. However, since evidence has not been given regarding the basis of the rate at which the plaintiff has claimed mesne profits, in my opinion, for mesne profits only a preliminary decree should be made. Issue Nos. 6 and 7 are accordingly answered in the affirmative. (9.) I think it is necessary to mention that Mr Bose has made some submissions regarding the discretionary powers of the Court to fix rent. He has said that it is not necessary to pass a decree for recovery of possession in every case. He has referred me to the evidence of PW. (9.) I think it is necessary to mention that Mr Bose has made some submissions regarding the discretionary powers of the Court to fix rent. He has said that it is not necessary to pass a decree for recovery of possession in every case. He has referred me to the evidence of PW. 1 who said in cross-examination that the matter could be settled by increasing rent. According to him, the Court should not ignore the fact that the defendant, a public sector insurance company, is carrying on its business activities in public interest. He has also reminded me of the provisions of section 89 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908. According to him, on the facts, I should exercise my discretion in favour of fixing the fair rent, instead of passing a decree for ejectment. (10) IN my considered opinion, the proposition on the basis whereof Mr bose has advanced these arguments is not legally acceptable. This is a pure and simple civil suit, and the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a pure private law. Keeping in view the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 89, I explored the possibility of an amicable settlement that I could not impose on an unwilling party. The fact remains that the parties could not reach an amicable settlement. The existing dispute between the parties, in my opinion, is an unqualified warrant for this Court to proceed to adjudicate the issues and determine them in accordance with law. I therefore cannot exercise any discretion not vested in me. (11.) FOR these reasons, I allow the suit. There shall be a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property by the plaintiff, and a preliminary decree for mesne profits payable by the defendant to the plaintiff from July 1st, 2005 till the date of delivery of possession. For determining the amount of mesne profits an inquiry shall be made in terms of the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or by applying the principles thereof, as the case may be. If the defendant does not deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within three months from date, the plaintiff will be entitled to put the decree for recovery of possession into execution. If the defendant does not deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within three months from date, the plaintiff will be entitled to put the decree for recovery of possession into execution. The plaintiff shall be entitled to all costs assessed according to the rules. The decrees shall be drawn up, prepared and completed within a fortnight from the date the records of the suit are sent down from this Court. Suit allowed.