JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This First Appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 18th August, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 57 of 2008 at the instance of the defendant/appellant. 2. By the said decree, the plaintiffs' prayer for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises from the defendant was allowed. The defendant was directed to quit, vacate and deliver the khas possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs within 90 days from the date of the decree in default, the plaintiffs were given liberty to get the decree executed through due process of law. 3. Let us now consider as to whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the said decree in the facts of the present case. 4. The plaintiffs' ownership in the suit property is not disputed by the defendant. Initially by an agreement to lease dated 1st September, 1980 Arya's Central Transport of India Pvt. Ltd. was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit premises being flat no. 93 on the 12th, 13th and 14t floors in Block-B or Trivoli Court of Multi storied building at premises no. 1/C, Ballygunge, Circular Road, Kolkata-19, consisting of five bed rooms, with attached baths and built in box rooms, kitchen-cum-panty, drawing-cum-dinning rooms, etc. and attached servants quarter with permission to park one car in the covered area of compound at rental of Rs. 5,000/- per month which was exclusively of all taxes and also hiring charges for fixtures and fittings @ Rs. 1,500/- per month aggregating to a total sum of Rs. 6,500/- per month payable according to English Calendar Month. Admittedly, lease-hold interest of the said lessee in respect of the said tenancy was transferred by the said lessee in favour of Central Arya Road Transport, a partnership firm with effect from 1st October, 1998 in which the Director of the lessee were partners. Such transfer of leasehold interest of the lessee in favour of the said partnership firm was intimated to the plaintiffs/landlords by the lessee's letter whereby the plaintiffs/landlord were requested to issue rent bills in favour Central Arya Road Transport on acceptance of rent from the said partnership firm. Such transfer of leasehold interest of the lessee in favour of the said partnership firm was intimated to the plaintiffs/landlords by the lessee's letter whereby the plaintiffs/landlord were requested to issue rent bills in favour Central Arya Road Transport on acceptance of rent from the said partnership firm. Pursuant to such request made by the said lessee, Central Arya Road Transport was accepted as a tenant under the plaintiffs/landlord in respect of the suit premises. 5. The rent of the suit premises was subsequently enhanced from Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 13,000/- per month. The said tenancy of the said partnership firm was determined by the plaintiffs/landlords by service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The said partnership firm was called upon to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises after expiry of the notice period. 6. However, since in spite of service of such notice upon the said partnership firm, the said partnership firm did not vacate the suit premises and/or give up vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiffs/landlords the instant suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiffs/landlord against the said partnership firm impleading it as defendant in the suit. 7. Though the defendant filed a written statement in the said suit denying the allegations made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint but ultimately the defendant did not give any evidence in the said suit. The defendant however cross-examined the plaintiffs' witness being P.W.1. 8. In course of trial of the said suit, the plaintiffs examined its witness who duly proved the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the rate of rent payable by such defendant/tenant and the service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the defendant/tenant. 9. Having regard to the fact that the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 13,000/- per month, the tenancy of the said tenant will be governed by the Transfer of Property Act in view of the provision contained in Section 3(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 10. Section 3 of the said Act deals with the tenancies where the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 will not apply. Presently we are concerned with Section 3(e) and Section 3(f). 10. Section 3 of the said Act deals with the tenancies where the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 will not apply. Presently we are concerned with Section 3(e) and Section 3(f). Section 3(e) Runs as follows:- Any premises let out for residential purpose, not being a premises within the purview of Clause (c), which carries more than - (i) six thousand and five hundred rupees as monthly rent in the area included within the limits of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation or the Howrah Municipal Corporation, or, (i) three thousand rupees as monthly rent in other areas to which this Act extends; Sections 3(f) of the said Act runs as follows:- Section 3(f) any premises let out for non-residential purpose, which carries more than - (ii) ten thousand rupees as monthly rent in the areas included within the limits of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation or the Howrah Municipal Corporation, or (iii) five thousand rupees as monthly rent in other areas to which this Act extends. Explanation - where any premises is let out partly for residential purpose and partly for non-residential purpose, the provisions of clause (f) shall apply to such premises in proportion to respective areas. Section 3(e) deals with provision relating to residential premises within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Howrah Municipal Corporation where the rent is more than Rs. 6,500/- (Rupee six thousand five hundred) per month and the residential premises included in other area to which the Act extends where rent is more than Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per month. 11. The said provisions, thus, make it clear that if the tenancy is created in respect of a premises included within Kolkata Municipal Corporation or Howrah Municipal Corporation for residential purpose and the rent is more than Rs. 6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred) per month the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 will not apply to such tenancy. It is also provided that in case where the tenancy is included within other areas where the Act extends and the rent is more than 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per month, such tenancy will not be governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 12. It is also provided that in case where the tenancy is included within other areas where the Act extends and the rent is more than 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per month, such tenancy will not be governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 12. Similarly, in view of Section 3(f) of the said Act if the rent of nonresidential tenancy within Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Howrah Municipal Corporation is more than 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) per month and where the tenancy is included within other area apart from Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Howrah Municipal Corporation where the Act extends, and rent is more than 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month, such tenancies will not be governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 13. Here though a dispute was sought to be raised by the appellant that the instant tenancy was created for non-residential purpose but looking at the agreement to lease deed and the purpose of creation of such tenancy and the description of the tenancy which includes bed-rooms, kitchen, drawing rooms and dining-cum-drawing room with servants' quarter we have no hesitation to hold that the instant tenancy was created for residential purpose. Since the rent of the suit premises is more than Rs. 6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred) only per month and the suit premises situates within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, we have no hesitation to hold that the tenancy of the defendant is governed by the Transfer of Property Act. 14. Mr. Chatterjee, however, contends that tenancy was created for nonresidential purpose. According to him, since the tenancy was created for nonresidential purpose and the rent is not more than Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) the tenancy is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 15. Mr. Chtterjee, has drawn our attention to the lease deed itself wherein it was mentioned that initially at the time of commencement of the tenancy, the rent was Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and service charges including taxes were Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only. 16. He thus submits that the rent has two components; one is rent i.e., the amount paid in consideration of letting and the other is payment for using the fitting and fixtures and taxes of the said premises. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and service charges including taxes were Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only. 16. He thus submits that the rent has two components; one is rent i.e., the amount paid in consideration of letting and the other is payment for using the fitting and fixtures and taxes of the said premises. He contends that the money payable for both the components were made double of the existing rates at the time when rent was enhanced from Rs. 6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred) to Rs. 13,000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand). He clarified as to how the figure Rs. 13,000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand) was reached. He contends that the rent i.e. consideration for letting was made double of the existing rent i.e. Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and the service charges and taxes was enhanced two times of the then existing rate i.e., from Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) to Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand). He thus contends that if Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) payable on account of service charges and taxes, is deducted from the total rent payable i.e. Rs. 13,000/-(Rupees thirteen thousand) then the actual rent i.e. the consideration for letting will be Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees then thousand) and since the rental value does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees then thousand), the tenancy of the defendant is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. He thus ultimately submits that the present suit as it is framed in the scheme of the eviction of the tenant under the Transfer of Property Act, is not maintainable and thus according to him, the suit should have been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. He thus invited this court to interfere with the impugned order. 17. Let us now consider this part of the submission of Mr. Chatterjee in the present set of facts. 18. At the out set we like to mention here that we cannot agree with Mr. Chatterjee that the present tenancy was created for non-residential purpose. Even assuming that the tenancy was created for non-residential purpose, still then on perusal of the materials on record we do not find any evidence that while enhancing the rent, the taxes and service charges were also enhanced by the defendant/tenant. In the absence of such evidence we can presume that only the rental component was enhanced. Even assuming that the tenancy was created for non-residential purpose, still then on perusal of the materials on record we do not find any evidence that while enhancing the rent, the taxes and service charges were also enhanced by the defendant/tenant. In the absence of such evidence we can presume that only the rental component was enhanced. Thus, we hold that even if the amount of money payable on account of rates and taxes and services charges is deducted from the enhanced rent of Rs. 13,000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand,) still then the actual rent payable by the defendant will be Rs. 11,500/- (Rupees eleven thousand five hundred). Thus, even if we proceed on the basis that the tenancy was created for a non-residential purpose still then we hold that the said tenancy is not governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 as the actual rent of the said tenancy was Rs. 11,500/- (Rupees eleven thousand five hundred) excluding the Municipal tax and service charges. 19. Since the tenancy is not governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the defendant/tenant cannot get any protection against eviction which were available to a tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 20. We find that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was duly determined by service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the defendant/tenant. The notice was admittedly received by the defendant/tenant. The notice is good, legal, valid and sufficient. As such, we do not find any illegality on the part of the learned Trial Court in passing a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Thus we affirm the findings of the learned Trial Court and maintain the decree for eviction passed by the learned Trial Court with this modification that the defendant/appellant is given two months time to vacate the suit premises and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiffs/respondents; subject to payment of occupational charges as per the earlier direction of this Court directly to the plaintiffs/respondents, in default, the plaintiffs/respondents will be entitled to recover vacant possession of the suit premises from the defendant through the process of execution in accordance with law. 21. 21. Before parting with, we like to mention here that certain amount of money was directed to be deposited by the defendant/appellant with the learned Registrar General of this Court towards occupational charges and in addition thereto, the defendant/appellant was also directed to pay certain amount of money directly to the plaintiffs/respondents and deposit certain amount of money with learned Registrar General of this Court towards occupational charges of the suit premises per month. The defendant/appellant has complied with the said directions of the Court and deposited the amount which he was required to deposit in terms of the order of the Court. He has also paid the monthly payment to the plaintiffs/respondents as per the direction of the Court. He has also deposited the periodical payments in court as per the Court's order. 22. Having regard to the fact that the defendant/appellant has enjoyed the stay order and the deposits and/or payments were also directed to be made by the defendant/appellant as a condition for enjoying the benefit of the said Stay order, we hold that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to receive the deposited amount together with the interest accrued thereon in addition to the payments made to the plaintiffs/respondent as the defendant/appellant has failed to succeed in this appeal. 23. We permit the plaintiffs/respondents to withdraw the entire deposited amount together with interest accrued thereon. 24. The learned Registrar General of this court is, thus, directed to pay the said deposited amount together with interest accrued thereon to the plaintiffs/respondents subject to the compliance of necessary formalities by the plaintiffs/respondents in this regard. 25. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. Subrata Talukdar, J. - I agree.