JUDGMENT Soumen Sen, J. 1. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of khas, peaceful and vacant possession of the premises situated at 84A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 014 more fully described in the schedule being Annexure “A” to the plaint. The plaintiff has also claimed decree for mesne profits and other reliefs. 2. The plaintiff after the institution of the suit made several attempts to serve the writ of summons upon the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff has followed all the three mode of services, namely, service by the process server, service by speed-post and substituted service. But in spite of all efforts being made, no direct service could be effected upon the defendant. It appears that since the plaintiff could not effect service of writ of summons by process server and Speed-Post with A.D., an order for substituted service was passed on 9th December, 2013 following which paper publication has been made once in the Times of India and once in Aaj Kal. However, in spite of such substituted service, the defendant has failed to appear and contest this proceeding. The Sheriff has also affixed the summons on the door of the declared address of the defendant Company. 3. However, the defendant fails to appear and contest this proceeding. 4. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the scheduled property. 5. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises on and from 27th September, 2011. Although, an agreement was executed by and between the parties but since the said agreement is unregistered and inadequately stamped a tenancy month by month by delivery of possession and tendering of rent is created by and between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant used to pay monthly rent on and from 10th of each month and at the time of demise such monthly rent was Rs.2,53,690/-. In addition to the monthly rent the defendant also used to pay maintenance charges on the basis of rent bill raised each month. Between 1st November, 2011 and 31st January, 2013, the defendant has made payment of monthly rent together with maintenance charges after making statutory reductions. There was an enhancement of rent from Rs.2,53,690/- to 266,374.50p. and since 1st November, 2012, the defendant was paying rent at such enhanced rate of Rs.2,66,374.50p.. Between 1st November, 2011 and 31st January, 2013, the defendant has made payment of monthly rent together with maintenance charges after making statutory reductions. There was an enhancement of rent from Rs.2,53,690/- to 266,374.50p. and since 1st November, 2012, the defendant was paying rent at such enhanced rate of Rs.2,66,374.50p.. The defendant, however, did not pay any rent on and from February, 2013. The defendant was untraceable. The defendant could not be found even at its registered office situated at 96/1, Matheswartala Road, Kolkata – 700 046 nor the defendant could be found at the suit premises. The plaintiff by a notice to quit dated 19th July, 2013 determined the said tenancy. The said notice was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The service of the said notice was effected by affixation at the suit premises since the notice sent by the General Post Office by Speed-Post returned with the endorsement “Lock & Key hence left”. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the plaintiff contends that on and from 11th August, 2013, the defendant is in wrongful possession of the suit premises. The defendant has claimed mesne profits on the basis of the last rent paid was Rs.2,66,374.50p. 7. Although the plaintiff is not obliged to adduce any evidence in view of the failure of the defendant to appear and contest the proceeding, Mr. Pravin Kr. Popat, one of the directors of the plaintiff Company appears as an witness and produces documents to establish the claim of the plaintiff in the suit. 8. The plaintiff Company has produced oral and documentary evidence to substantiate its claim in the suit. 9. The witness in his deposition has proved the averments made in the plaint. 10. The witness has verified the plaint. The witness has proved the facts stated in the plaint. The witness has produced documentary evidence to show that the last initial rent was Rs.2,53,690/- and the last rent paid was Rs.2,66,374.50p. The evidence also shows that the defendant has failed to pay monthly rents on and from February, 2013. The rent receipts and the bank pass-books are produced by the plaintiff to prove the quantum of rent and receipt of the said amount. The witness has also produced the notice to quit and the postal envelopes along with the acknowledgement due cards which contain an endorsement under “Lock & Key hence Left”. The rent receipts and the bank pass-books are produced by the plaintiff to prove the quantum of rent and receipt of the said amount. The witness has also produced the notice to quit and the postal envelopes along with the acknowledgement due cards which contain an endorsement under “Lock & Key hence Left”. The witness has also produced the proof of service of notice upon the defendant by affixation on the door of the defendant Company. 11. The said witness has proved the factum of tenancy as well as the payment of rent upto January, 2013. The said witness has also produced the bank pass-books of the plaintiff Company, namely, Karnataka Bank Ltd. where such rents were deposited month by month. The witness further deposed that he visited the suit premises several times when he found the suit premises to be always under “Lock and Key”. The witness also produced the envelopes containing the notices dated 19th July, 2013 issued under the instruction of the plaintiff by the Advocates of the plaintiff M/s. Dey and Associates and stated that such notices were sent by Speed-Post. One of such notices was addressed to defendant at 84A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 014 and the other was sent to the office of the defendant at 96/1, Matheswartala Road, Kolkata – 700 046. He produced the envelopes with the acknowledgement due cards. The witness also produced a photograph of the notice to quit issued by the Advocate-on-record on behalf of the plaintiff Company dated 19th July, 2013 and stated that he himself had affixed the said notice at the suit premises. He further deposed that in spite of such notices, the defendant has failed to pay the rents from the month of February, 2013 onwards nor did they vacate the suit premises. 12. On the basis of such oral and documentary evidence, it appears that the defendant was in possession of the suit premises under an unregistered lease and it becomes a tenancy from month to month terminable on the part either of the parties by 15 days’ notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The ground for termination of the lease appears to be that the defendant has failed to pay on and from February, 2013. Non-registration of the document usually causes two consequences. The ground for termination of the lease appears to be that the defendant has failed to pay on and from February, 2013. Non-registration of the document usually causes two consequences. One is that no lease exceeding one year can be considered to be created and secondly the instrument becomes useless so far as creation of the lease is concerned. Nonetheless, the presumption that a lease not exceeding one year stood created by conduct of parties remains unrebutted. When lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and such transfer can be made expressly or by implication, the mere fact that an unregistered instrument came into existence would not stand in the way of the Court to determine whether there was, in fact, a lease otherwise than through such deed. 13. A lease month by month is determinable either by the lessor or lessee by 15 days’ notice expiring with the end of the month. The lessor is not required to give any reason for determination of such lease. There would not be much difficulty in establishing that arrears of rent had fallen due. 14. The notice terminated the tenancy under Section 106 has been duly served in the mode and manner as required under the said section upon the defendant and the defendant notwithstanding the receipt of such notices did not controvert the statements made in the said notices, nor the said defendant is contesting the suit. The defendant under the facts and circumstances deemed to have constructed notice and since it appears that the defendant is deliberately avoiding service of any notice even the writ issued by this Court, the validity of the notice and its service upon the defendant is upheld. 15. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff would claim mesne profits only on the basis of the last rent paid and received by the plaintiff and would not adduce any other evidence in that regard. 16. The allegations made in the plaint are not denied. The defendant in spite of service of writ of summons has failed to appear and contest this proceeding. The defendant is not under any disability. The defendant could have entered appearance and contest this proceeding. 17. 16. The allegations made in the plaint are not denied. The defendant in spite of service of writ of summons has failed to appear and contest this proceeding. The defendant is not under any disability. The defendant could have entered appearance and contest this proceeding. 17. Considering the evidence-on-record and the provisions of the Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my view, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for recovery of khas possession as well as mesne profits. In view of the aforesaid, there shall be a decree for recovery of khas, peaceful and vacant possession of the premises situated at 84A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 014 as fully described in Annexure “A” to the plaint in favour of the plaintiff. There shall be a decree for a sum of Rs.11,74,691/- together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on and from February, 2013 till June, 2013. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,66,374.50p. on and from September, 2013 till recovery of possession. 18. The department is directed to draw up the decree as expeditiously as possible.