Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 102 (CAL)

Nopany and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Roma Bhagat

2018-01-12

SHIVAKANT PRASAD

body2018
JUDGMENT : Shivakant Prasad, J. Plaintiffs' case, in brief, is that one Madan Gopal Bhagat, father of Gopalakrishna Bhagat, since deceased, was inducted as a tenant of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 350/- by Late Bhujendra Krishna Gooptu who died in the year 1962 leaving behind his wife Sukhanandan Bhagat and only son Gopalakrishna Bhagat, since deceased. His widow died on 8th May, 1998 leaving her surviving son as her heir who lived with her at the time of her death. 2. In 1970 Soumendra Chandra Gooptu became the owner of the premises but no tenancy had been attorned in his favour and no rent was ever paid or tendered to him. No rent receipts were ever issued to the heirs of the original deceased tenant. 3. The plaintiffs are the companies owned, controlled and managed by Mr. Bimal Kumar Nopani. On April 6, 1981, plaintiff no.1 purchased the suit premises No. 11, Rawdan Street, Calcutta-700 017 and never acknowledged any person as its tenant at the said premises. 4. The plaintiffs' filed the instant suit against the original defendant Gopalakrishna Bhagat for a decree of eviction on the contention that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 came into force on 10th July, 2001. Consequently, said Gopalakrishna Bhagat was not entitled to protection under section 2(g) of the said Act 1997 as he ceased to be a tenant after a period of five years which lapsed from the date of coming into force of the said Act but he continued to be in wrongful occupation of the suit premises since July 10, 2006. 5. Hence, the suit for a decree of recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises described in the schedule to the plaint and for a decree of Rs. 90,50,000/-, mesne profits and other reliefs. 6. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all material particulars made in the plaint and contended, inter alia, that suit is not maintainable as it was filed against Gopalakrishna Bhagat, her husband who occupied the suit premises against a valid tenancy and after his demise, the defendant Smt. Roma Bhagat is regularly paying rent, therefore, question of cessation of tenancy in respect of the suit premises after the death of her father-in-law or after five years from the date of enforcement of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 does not arise. 7. 7. Specific case of this defendant is that her father-in-law late Madan Gopal Bhagat was inducted as a tenant in respect of the lower flat of the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 335/- in the year 1934 and her husband Gopalakrishna Bhagat was inducted as a tenant in respect of the upper flat of the suit premise at a monthly rental of Rs. 320/-in the year 1954 by the landlord Gooptu Estates Limited and both of them regularly paid rent to the landlord in respect of their tenancy. 8. Subsequently, at the request of the said Gooptu Estates Limited, the rent was enhanced from time to time and ultimately enhanced to Rs. 714/-per month for the upper flat and Rs. 724/- per month for the lower flat of the said premises. The husband of the defendant started to deposit the monthly rent for both the flats with the Rent Controller and the defendant is continuing to deposit rents with the Rent controller. 9. Immediately after the death of said Madan Gopal in the year 1962, dispute arose between several persons and said Gooptu Estates Limited regarding the ownership of the said Estate and the suit was filed before the Hon'ble Court wherein a Receiver was appointed and the husband of this defendant used to pay rent in the name of Receiver before the Rent Controller, Calcutta as per his advice. 10. It is contended that after receiving the rent for several years from the husband of this defendant, all of a sudden said Gooptu Estate Limited refused to receive rent from the husband of the defendant. So having no other alternative, rents were deposited before the Rent Controller in favour of the original owner and others as at the relevant time there was a dispute regarding the ownership of the property. 11. According to defendant, UCO Bank filed an application against Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd. and others and after several proceedings, the tribunal in the said case no.TRP/02/2002 issued certificate against said Bilaspur Spinning Mills Industries Ltd. and appointed a receiver. In the said proceeding, a proclamation of sale was issued for selling the said Premises No. 11, Rawdon Street, Calcutta- 700017 and was put in auction for sale. In the said proceeding, a proclamation of sale was issued for selling the said Premises No. 11, Rawdon Street, Calcutta- 700017 and was put in auction for sale. Several persons including the husband of this defendant submitted their offers for purchasing the suit premises but ultimately M/s. Daffodil Project Ltd. was the highest bidder and the bid was accepted for the sale subject to certain terms and conditions. Subsequently, on the application of the plaintiff no. 1, the confirmation of sale was stopped but the sale of the said premises to Daffodils Private Limited has not been set aside as yet. 12. It is further stated that in the proceeding being TRP/02/2002 (U.C.O. Bank v. Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd and others) pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the husband of this defendant was declared as tenant in respect of the entire Premises No. 11, Rawdon street, Calcutta- 700017 as per the receiver's report and an opportunity was given to the husband of the defendant to submit quotation of market price for purchasing the said premises along with earnest money by an Order no. 102 of June 2005 but there was no whisper of Nopany & Sons Private Limited or Hanuman Industries India Private Limited and as such, this defendant is unable to understand how the plaintiff company's became the owner of the suit premises as the plaintiffs failed to disclose any details regarding ownership although on the previous occasion Gooptu Estates Ltd. was the owner of the said premises. 13. It is further contended that the said premises is now the subject matter of the certificate proceedings pending before the tribunal but the plaintiffs by suppressing the material facts filed the suit for eviction of the defendants. Accordingly, the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost. 14. On the above pleadings, following issues were framed to go to trial- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form against the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have any locus standi to file the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action and whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against the defendant in the present suit? 4. Whether the suit can be filed and or continued under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 against upon a rightful tenant without serving any statutory notice? 5. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action and whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against the defendant in the present suit? 4. Whether the suit can be filed and or continued under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 against upon a rightful tenant without serving any statutory notice? 5. Is the suit premise the subject matter of certificate proceeding pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal? 6. Whether after the death of the original defendant, his wife and sons have become tenants of the suit premises? 7. Whether the defendant is entitled to any protection under the West Bengal premises tenancy Act, 1997? 8. Whether Gopalakrishna Bhagat was entitled to occupy and remain in possession thereof after five years from the date of coming into force of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, that is after July 10, 2006? 9. Whether Roma Bhagat was entitled to occupy and remain in possession thereof after five years from the date of coming into force of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997, that is after July 10, 2006? 10. Whether Roma Bhagat is in wrongful possession and occupation of the suit premises or any portion thereof? 11. Whether the defendant has any right to remain in wrongful occupation and/or possession of the suit premises, and or any portion thereof? 12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for and to what relief relates, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? Evidence 15. Plaintiffs have examined one Mr. Surajit's Pyne (PW 1) and Mr Bimal Kumar Nopani (PW 2) as witnesses and have adduced following documentary evidence - Exhibit A - true certified copy of resolution dated 2nd December, 2016 passed by Nopany & Sons Private Limited. Exhibit B - true certified copy of resolution dated 28th November, 2016 passed by Hanuman Industries Private Limited. Exhibit C - certified copy of deed of conveyance dated 6th April, 1981. Exhibit D - certified copy of deed of lease dated 10th January, 1981. Exhibit E - letter dated 12th June, 2013 of Mukherjee Biswas Advocates addressed to Dube and Co Advocates. Exhibit F - certified copy of application under Section 21 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act filed before Rent Controller. 16. Exhibit D - certified copy of deed of lease dated 10th January, 1981. Exhibit E - letter dated 12th June, 2013 of Mukherjee Biswas Advocates addressed to Dube and Co Advocates. Exhibit F - certified copy of application under Section 21 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act filed before Rent Controller. 16. The defendant Smt. Roma Bhagat examined herself as the sole witness and adduced in evidence the following documents - Exhibit 1 - receipt dated 01.05.1954 for Rs. 325/- towards the rent of the upper flat (as per schedule in the lease) drawn by Gooptu Estates Limited in favour of Gopalakrishna Bhagat. Exhibit 2 - receipt dated 02.04. 1956 for Rs. 335/-towards the rent of the lower flat (as per schedule in the lease) drawn by Gooptu Estates Private Limited in favour of Madan Gopal Bhagat. Exhibit 3 - letter dated 13.09.1961 for the rent of Rs. 350/- for lower flat signed by late Gopalakrishna Bhagat to Gooptu Estates Private Limited. Exhibit 4 - letter dated 30.09.1961 enclosing two cheques for Rs. 350/- and Rs. 340/- and respective rent receipts for August, 1961 issued by Gooptu Estates Private Limited. Exhibit 5 - receipt dated 05.10.1961 issued by Official Liquidator High Court for Rs. 342/-to Mr. Bhagat for the upper floor flat. Exhibit 6 collectively purportedly valid kacha and pucca receipts dated 12.10.1961, 28.10.1961. Exhibit 7 - Original letters dated 22.11.1961 for the upper and lower flats from P.K. Sen Barat, Solicitor addressed to Mr. Gopalkrishna Bhagat and Mr. Madan Gopal Bhagat respectively, letter dated 27.6.1974 from Mr. B.K. Das, Receiver to Gopalakrishna Bhagat, original letters dated 27.6.1974 from B.K. Das Receiver to Sukhnandan Bhagat. Decision With Reasons Issues nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 17. The aforesaid issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience in discussion and for brevity. 18. Mr. Utpal Bose, learned senior counsel for the defendant submitted on the moot issues pertaining to maintainability of the suit as the plaintiffs have no cause of action to maintain such a suit as no statutory notice, as required under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 has been served against the bona fide tenant being the defendants and further on account of non-joinder of necessary parties as after the death of Gopalakrishna Bhagat his wife Roma Bhagat and his two sons have become tenants of the suit premises by general succession and inheritance. Roma Bhagat the present defendant is the widow of the original tenant defendant late Gopalakrishna Bhagat who since his induction as a tenant continued to pay rent to the Gooptu Estates Limited without any default in payment of rent as would be evident from rent receipts Exhibits- 1, 2 and rent challans showing deposit of rents with the Rent Controller, Calcutta and from the receipts issued from time to time by the Receiver appointed by the court in connection with the suit premises and he had also continued to pay rent in respect of his father's portion of the premises. 19. It is argued that the case of the defendant finds corroboration from the rent receipts and rent challans of the fact that her father-inlaw Madan Gopal Bhagat and her husband Gopalkrishna Bhagat were inducted into the premises as tenants by Gooptu Estates Limited. Rent receipts Exhibit- 1 and Exhibit- 2 are documents in respect of upper flat in favour of Gopalkrishna Bhagat and lower flat in the name of Madan Gopal Bhagat at 11, Rawdon Street, Calcutta-700 017. Rent receipt, Exhibit-1 shows that Gopalkrishna Bhagat was inducted as a tenant in the month of May, 1954 in respect of upper flat at a rental of Rs. 325/- per month whereas rent receipt Exhibit-2 reflects that Mandal Gopal Bhagat since deceased was inducted as tenant in respect of lower flat at a rental of Rs. 335/- per month. A letter dated 13th September, 1961 of Gopalkrishna Bhagat (Exhibit-3) addressed to Messrs Gooptu Estates Private Limited reflects tendering of Rs. 350/- rental for the month of September, 1961 for lower flat by way of Cheque No. CA 511952 dated 12th September,1961 on Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd. A kacha receipt dated 30.9.1961 of the Official Liquidator, High Court (Exhibit 4, objected) reveals receipt of rent by cheque issued by Gooptu Estates Private Limited through one P.K. Ramalingam. Receipt granted by Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta (Exhibit- 5) is receipt of a sum of Rs. 350/- for the month of September,1961 in respect of upper flat. Letter dated October 12, 1961 of Gopalkrishna Bhagat addressed to the Receiver of said Gooptu Estates Private Limited (Exhibit- 6 collectively)also shows tendering of rent in advance for the months of October and November, 1961 in respect of upper flat of the suit premises. 20. 350/- for the month of September,1961 in respect of upper flat. Letter dated October 12, 1961 of Gopalkrishna Bhagat addressed to the Receiver of said Gooptu Estates Private Limited (Exhibit- 6 collectively)also shows tendering of rent in advance for the months of October and November, 1961 in respect of upper flat of the suit premises. 20. It appears from a letter dated 22.11.1961 of P.K. Sen Barat, Solicitor that Madan Gopal Bhagat was informed in connection with a Suit No. 1689 of 1961 between Rajendra Chandra Gooptu and others v. Gooptu Estates (P) Ltd. (in Liqudn.) that by an order of the Hon'ble High Court Mr. B. Das Barrister at law was appointed the Receiver of the premises No. 11, Rawdon Street, Calcutta-700 017 lower part as per schedule of the lease. 21. It would appear from two separate applications filed before the Rent Controller, Calcutta (Exhibits-F collectively), which according to the defendant establishes the existence of two separate tenancy, one by Sukhnandan Bhagat and another by Gopalakrishna Bhagat seeking permission to deposit rents to the credit of all the opposite parties, but the cause title of the said applications reveals that the present plaintiff Nopany & Sons Pvt. Ltd. is one of the opposite parties being O.P. No. 11 but no such rent challan submitted before this Court showing deposit of rents in favour of all the opposite parties. Such applications were filed on 06.7.1991 whereas the Receiver Mr. D. Das had already instructed them to attorn the tenancy in favour of landlords namely, Smt. Kanaklata Devi and Sri Soumendra Chandra Gooptu but the defendants failed and neglected to comply with the requests so made by the Receiver appointed by the Hon'ble High Court. 22. I find no justification as to why the defendant, in a fancy go manner deposited rents with the Rent Controller to the credit of Gooptu Estates Pvt. Ltd. only when the order of the High Court was to give and hand over possession of the premises to said Smt. Kanaklata Devi and Sri Soumendra Chandra Gooptu being the landlords of the suit premises. It would reveal from averments made in paragraph 5 of the said applications of the defendants that they were intimated by letter dated May 19th, 1991 that the opposite party No. 3 had made them known about the sale of the suit premises to the opposite party No. 11, the present plaintiffs herein. Therefore, there was no point in disputing the ownership of the rightful owners and for not having attorned the tenancy to rightful owners of the suit premises. It is not open for the tenants to question the ownership of the plaintiff landlord. 23. Mr. Bose further submitted that an application under Order 12 Rule 6 for judgment upon admission being GA No. 979 of 2009 evidences the factum that the plaintiffs sought to take advantage of obtaining an order, by admitting Gopalkrishna Bhagat as their tenant. The judgment upon admission passed by the High Court in the said application was regarding existence of two separate tenancies. The grounds taken by the plaintiffs in the memorandum of cross-appeal being Appeal No. 328 of 2010 also refers to Gopalkrishna Bhagat as one of their tenants. The judgment in the appeal records the admission of the plaintiffs regarding existence of two separate tenancies and available rent receipts in favour of Madan Gopal Bhagat from May, 1956 to August, 1961 and rent receipts in favour of Gopalkrishna Bhagat from June, 1954 to August, 1961 issued by Gooptu Estate prove two separate tenancies. It is submitted that the rent receipt dated 05.10.1961(Exhibit-5) in favour of Gopalkrishna Bhagat and in favour of Madan Gopal Bhagat issued by Official Liquidator also proves the fact of two separate tenancies. It is also contended that as the receiver was appointed, rent was paid to him and available rent receipts issued by the Receiver to Madan Gopal Bhagat and after his demise to his wife Sukhnandan Bhagat from October, 1961 till December, 1966 and all rent receipts issued by the said receiver in favour of Gopalkrishna Bhagat from December, 1961 to December, 1966 revealed the fact of two tenancies separately in respect of upper flat in favour of Gopalkrishna Bhagat and lower flat in favour of Madan Gopal Bhagat. As the receiver had directed, the rent was deposited with the Rent Controller, thereafter, rent was duly deposited in his name with the Rent Controller and all available challans are issued by the Rent Controller for the rent deposited on behalf of Madan Gopal Bhagat in the name of the receiver from January, 1967 to July, 1974 being collectively Annexure-F and all available rent challans showing deposit by Gopalkrishna Bhagat produced in order to substantiate the case of the defendants that they are the tenants in respect of the suit premises. 24. It is further contended that since the receiver informed Gopalkrishna Bhagat and Sukhnandan Bhagat to attron their respective tenancies to Soumendra Chandra Gooptu and Smt. Kanaklata Devi as their landlords (Exhibit- 7), rents were deposited in their favour. All available rent challans are issued by the Rent Controller for the rent deposited on behalf of Madan Gopal Bhagat and by Gopalkrishna in the name of Smt. Kanaklata Devi and Soumendra Chandra Gooptu from August, 1974 to December, 1974 have been produced as Annexure-H. It is pointed out that all available rent challans are issued by the Rent Controller for the rent deposited by Gopalakrishna Bhagat in the name of said Smt. Kanaklata Devi and Soumendra Chandra Gooptu from August, 1974 to December, 1974 and have been collectively Annexure-I and rent challans issued by Rent Controller on behalf of Madan Gopal Bhagat in the name of said Smt. Kanaklata Devi and Soumendra Chandra Gooptu and Gooptu Estates from January, 1975 to July, 1991 collectively Annexure-J have been filed after the evidence on trial was concluded at the stage of argument in reply on law points on behalf of the defendant. 25. I am unable to agree with such submission of Mr. Bose as there is no evidence showing tender of the rent to the landlords by way of remittance through money order or otherwise and refusal to accept such rent, compelling the tenant to deposit the rent with Rent Controller. The rents deposited with Rent Controller are all invalid deposits. I do not find any pleading or any evidence on record to substantiate the submission of learned counsel for the defendant that the original defendant was informed that a portion of the schedule premises had been handed over to the plaintiff no. The rents deposited with Rent Controller are all invalid deposits. I do not find any pleading or any evidence on record to substantiate the submission of learned counsel for the defendant that the original defendant was informed that a portion of the schedule premises had been handed over to the plaintiff no. 1, however, since the defendant was uncertain as to which portion had fallen into the hands of the plaintiff no.1, the name of the plaintiff no.1 M/s. Nopany & Sons Pvt. Ltd. was also included in the applications made before the Rent Controller as depicted from applications under Section 21 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (Exhibit-F collectively). Therefore, the defendant was well in the knowledge of transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs by its rightful owners. 26. According to the defendant, all available rent challans issued by the rent controller for the rent deposited on behalf of Madan Gopal Bhagat in favour of Smt. Kanaklata Devi and Soumendra Chandra Gupta and Nopany & Sons Pvt. Ltd. from August, 1991 till December, 2017 have been tendered and marked as part of the Exhibit- 8. Such submission appears to be wishful thinking on the part of the defendant and is a mere submission by way of written notes on argument as the rent challans Exhibit- 8 collectively do reflect the deposit of rents not in favour of the plaintiffs, rather the rents have been all through deposited in the name of Gooptu Estates Private Limited who is not the landlord after the tenancy was attorned in favour of Smt. Kanaklata Devi and Soumendra Chandra Gooptu. Smt. Roma Bhagat the defendant in her deposition recognised Gooptu Estates Private Limited as the landlord but has denied having any recognition or knowledge about Nopany & Sons Private Limited. Such submission cannot be accepted inasmuch as the defendant was aware of the fact that the plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the suit premises as would be axiomatic from the said certified copy of applications under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, collectively marked as Exhibit-F. In this regard, it has been argued by Mr. Bose that the defendant was uncertain as to which portion had fallen into the hands of the plaintiff no. 1 and in absence of any letter of attornment the defendant was depositing rent to the Rent Controller. Bose that the defendant was uncertain as to which portion had fallen into the hands of the plaintiff no. 1 and in absence of any letter of attornment the defendant was depositing rent to the Rent Controller. Such submission cannot be agreed upon as evidence so adduced by the defendant because applications (Exhibit-F collectively) does not find corroboration with the fact that rents were tendered in favour of the plaintiff no. 1. Evidence adduced by Roma Bhagat in unequivocal term reveals that she is in occupation of the entire premises and the rent challans also show that rents have been tendered intentionally showing the entire premises to be one in the tenancy of Gopalkrishna Bhagat. 27. It would be profitable to reproduce the provision of Section 21 of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 thus- "On such deposit of the rent, the Controller shall send in the prescribed manner the copy or copies of the application to the landlords or persons claiming to be entitled to the rent with an endorsement showing the date of deposit, such endorsement being authenticated by the seal of the office, and the signature, of the Controller or some other officer authorized by him in this behalf. Such authenticated copy of the application shall be admissible in evidence in any Court." 28. Adverting to the above provision it is submitted that immediately after filing of the application and on such deposit of the rent made to the Rent Controller, send in the prescribed manner the copy of application to the landlord or person claiming to be entitled to the rent with an endorsement showing the date of the deposit and in view of such provision the plaintiff no. 1 was aware of the fact that the original defendant had been paying rent separately for each portion of the premises vide rent challans collectively marked Exhibit 8 which goes to show that Gopalakrishna Bhagat son of late Madan Gopal Bhagat executor to the Estate of Late Madan Gopal Bhagat was residing at suit premises and tendered rent of Rs. 350/-+ Rs. 374/- totalling as Rs. 724/- for the month of January 2009 in favour of the landlord namely, Gooptu Estate Private Ltd. in respect of Premises No. 11, Rawdon Street, Calcutta-700017. 29. 350/-+ Rs. 374/- totalling as Rs. 724/- for the month of January 2009 in favour of the landlord namely, Gooptu Estate Private Ltd. in respect of Premises No. 11, Rawdon Street, Calcutta-700017. 29. I do not agree with such contention on behalf of the defendant because the plaintiffs cannot be said to be aware of the fact that the original defendant had been paying rent separately for each portion of the premises. These are all wishful thinking on mere submission made on behalf of the defendant. 30. I find no reason why the defendant would submit that the plaintiffs purportedly purchased the premises in 1981 and were aware of the tenant of the suit premises that Madan Gopal Bhagat had passed away 1962 as would be evident from the answer to question 29 in the examination in chief of Surajit Pyne PW1 while the tenancy of the Gopalakrishna Bhagat was then alive in respect of the premises. Moreover it is the plaintiff's case that since Gopalakrishna Bhagat on behalf of Late Madan Gopal Bhagat tendered rent (Exhibit-3) there was only one tenancy in existence. The rent challans as shown from the Exhibit-8 collectively clearly goes to show that Gopalakrishna Bhagat has treated the entire premises as one tenancy and has no business to challenge the ownership of the plaintiffs who have purchased the entire premises from the rightful owner as has been proved from the exhibits on record. 31. On the issue of maintainability of suit, Mr. Bose submitted that in absence of all the legal heirs of the original defendant, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. By inviting my attention to letter dated 12th June, 2013 being (Exhibit-E) issued by Advocate on record of the defendant to Advocate on record of the plaintiffs, it is pointed out that plaintiffs were informed of the demise of Gopalakrishna Bhagat mentioning details of all his legal heirs but the plaintiffs chose to only substitute Roma Bhagat in place of late Gopalakrishna Bhagat. It is urged that the suit is not maintainable as it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties relying on an order dated 15th July, 2013 passed in GA No. 1918 of 2013 arising out of CS No. 3 of 2009 passed on an application filed by the plaintiffs for substitution of the heirs of late Gopal Krishna Bhagat which is to the following effects- "In the usual course the legal heirs and representatives of the sole defendant ought to have been brought on record but as the plaintiff seeks to only bring the widow on record and not proceed against the other legal heirs and representatives of the original defendant, the same may be a risk taken by the plaintiff, but as such prayer is sought, the same is allowed." 32. An appeal being appeal no. 393 of 2013 was preferred by the defendant from the said order when order was passed by the Division Bench on 21st August, 2013 wherein it was observed that- "The issue that whether the suit could be proceeded in absence of sons may be an issue in the suit." 33. In this context Mr. Bose referred to a decision in case of Amarnath Ramani v. Sanjiv Das Gupta and others reported in 2008 (3) CHN 962 to and Jaharlal Saha and others v. Pradip Saha and others reported in 2006 (1) CHN 513 wherein it is held that the tenancy is heritable under the provisions of Section 2(h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Section 2(h) reads thus- "Tenant means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf, the rent of any premises is, or but for a special contract would be, payable and includes any person continuing in position after the termination of his tenancy or in the event of such persons that, such of his heirs as we are ordinarily residing within at the time of his death, but shall not include any person against whom any decree or order for eviction has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction". 34. 34. It would be profitable also to reproduce the provision of Section 2(g) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 to show the change in definition of a tenant which reads as under- "'Tenant' means any person by whom or whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or, but for a special contract, would be payable, and includes any person continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy and, in the event of death of any tenant, also includes, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of death of such tenant or from date of coming into force of this act, whichever is later, is a spouse, son, daughter, parent and the widow of his predeceased son, who were ordinarily living with the tenant up to the date of death of the tenant as the members of the his family and where dependent on him and who do not own or of by any residential premises, and in respect of premises let out for none residential purpose his spouse, son, daughter and parent who were ordinarily living with the tenant after the date of his death as members of his family, and were dependent on him or a person authorised by the tenant who is in possession of such premises but shall not include any person against whom any decree or order for eviction has been made by the court of competent jurisdiction: provided that the time limit of five years sell not apply to the spouse of the tenant was ordinarily living with a tenant up to his death as a member of his family and was dependent on him and who does not own or occupy any residential premises, provided further that the son, daughter, apparent on the widow of the predeceased son of the tenant who was ordinarily residing with a tenant in the said premises after the date of death of the tenant as a member of his family and was dependent on him and who does not own or occupy any residential premises, sell have a right of reference for tenancy in a fresh agreement in respect of such premises on condition of payment of fair rent. This proviso shall apply mutatis mutandis to premises let out for none residential purposes." 35. Thus, it is submitted by Mr. This proviso shall apply mutatis mutandis to premises let out for none residential purposes." 35. Thus, it is submitted by Mr. Bose adverting to the provision that the defendant being dependent on her husband tenant having no other place of accommodation is entitled to the benefit as is provided under the proviso to Section 2(g) of 1997 Act since there was never any default in payment of rent on the part of the tenant occupying the suit premises. It is further contended that in spite of knowing the stand of the defendant regarding two distinct tenancy no attempt was made by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint or lead any relevant cross-examination of the defendant on that score. It is submitted that the plaintiffs admitted the two tenancy in their application under Order 12, Rule 6 of C.P. Code and the subsequent appeal but chose not to deal with that case at the hearing of the suit and placed reliance in case of AEG Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian [ AIR 1961 Cal 359 ] and SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [ (1994)1 SCC 1 ]. 36. In AEG Carapiet case (supra) it has been observed that failure to put the important and crucial part of the case to the witnesses coming to prove testamentary capacity must be held against the respondents. And that the law is clear on the subject wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. 37. I do agree with such concept of law but in the given facts of the case such is not the case. It is true that G.A No.114 of 2009 was moved before this Court for judgment and decree on admissions of the defendant/tenant and against the order and judgment dated 25.03.2010 the defendant preferred an appeal being APO No.214 of 2014 before the Division Bench of this High Court. It is evident from the judgment dated September 24, 2014 reported in (2014) 4 Cal LT 553 (SC) that it was observed in Paragraph 16 as under: "16. It is evident from the judgment dated September 24, 2014 reported in (2014) 4 Cal LT 553 (SC) that it was observed in Paragraph 16 as under: "16. The procedure contemplated under Order 12 Rule 6 can be adopted and the Court can in its discretion either allow the suit of the plaintiff to the extent admitted by the defendant or dismiss the suit of the plaintiff to the extent plaintiff admits the case of the defendant. In order to appreciate the stand of the plaintiff that there is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission on the part of the defendant tenant that his father was in occupation of the ground floor and he was in occupation of upper flat as tenants, the description of the schedule in the plaint does not demarcate the lower portion or lower flat that was in occupation of Madan Gopal Bhagat and what would exactly constitute upper flat for which the deceased defendant became the tenant. Apart from this by referring to various litigations between Gooptu Estates Ltd. Under whom both father and son became tenants and third parties, the deceased defendant has categorically said in affidavit-in-opposition that he is not accepting the plaintiff as landlord/owner of the property. The admission to have a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 has to be clear admission. If it is a conditional admission Court cannot exercise discretion while considering the application under Order 12 Rule 6." 38. It has also been observed that- "the factual situation so far as the person in occupation of the premises in 1934 and 1954 cannot be clarified with the inspection by the Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. What exactly was in occupation of Madan Gopal Bhagat as tenant in 1934 and what exactly the portion in occupation of his son Gopal Krishna Bhagat from 1954 onwards must be ascertained from the pleadings, the evidence so to be led in and the evidence that would be relied upon by the parties. It has to be by a regular adjudication process and accordingly there was no need for appointment of Commissioner for inspection of the premises in order to ascertain the details of tenancy pertaining to 1934 and 1955." 39. Therefore, in my opinion the extent of tenancy was left to be decided by the suit court. So the contention of Mr. It has to be by a regular adjudication process and accordingly there was no need for appointment of Commissioner for inspection of the premises in order to ascertain the details of tenancy pertaining to 1934 and 1955." 39. Therefore, in my opinion the extent of tenancy was left to be decided by the suit court. So the contention of Mr. Bose that the plaintiffs have not led such evidence during trial in respect of the extent of tenancy is of no consequence. 40. In concluding his argument, Mr. Bose submitted that the plaintiff cannot seek a decree of eviction in respect of the upper flat which was from the beginning occupied by her husband Gopalkrishna Bhagat as a tenant and the defendant is more than adequately protected by proviso to Section 2(g)of 1997 Act which gives her absolute protection. Even in case of lower flat it is submitted that in the absence of all heirs not having been brought on record the suit is bad and liable to be dismissed. To fortify this stand, Mr. Bose referred to a decision in case of Goutam Dey v. Jyotsna Chatterjee reported in [ 2013 (1) CHN 336 ] contending that the decision lends ample support to the defendant and observation made therein are crucial in deciding the issue in favour of the defendant and accordingly, submitted for dismissal of the suit in limine. 41. In rebuttal, Mr. Dhruba Ghose Ld. Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs contended that it is manifestly clear on plain reading of the paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint that late Madan Gopal Bhagat was the tenant of the entire suit premises and after his death in 1962 his widow and son Gopalakrishna Bhagat became occupiers of the suit premises as legal heirs of the original tenant. Sukhanandan Bhagat died in May, 1998 and she was survived by her son Gopalakrishna Bhagat. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 came into force on 10th July, 2001 and on and from 10th July, 2006 after five years from the date of coming into force of the Act of 1997 the defendant lost his right to occupy the suit property as a tenant and as such is in wrongful possession of the suit property. 42. 42. It is submitted that after, redeeming the mortgage and getting the title deeds back from the bank, the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction on the ground that Gopal Krishna Bhagat was a trespasser, by reason of provisions of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 43. In terms of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 as reproduced (supra), in case of death of the original tenant, his wife/spouse, son etc., ordinarily living with him, can continue in possession in two situations (i) either of five (5) years from his death; or(ii) five years from the date of coming into force of the Act, whichever is later. 44. Thus, the language of Section 2(g) is clear and unambiguous and the plain words 'whichever is later' means that the legislature envisaged that the section would apply to the death of a tenant before the Act and after the Act. 45. The original tenant, Madan Gopal Bhagat, died in 1962 and therefore his heirs were protected for five years thereafter i.e. till 1967 or five years from the Act coming into force i.e. July 9, 2006, whichever is later. Since 2006 is "later" so the heirs of Madan Gopal Bhagat become trespassers from July 10, 2006. 46. It is significant that the heirs of Madan Gopal Bhagat were never accepted as tenants by the landlords. There is no evidence that their possession was surrendered in favour of the landlords, and a fresh tenancy was created in their favour. 47. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Ghose relied on a decision reported in (2012) 2 CHN 56 (Prabir Kumar Jalan v. Laxmi Narayan Jalan), and judgment dated 28th March, 2017 in Maganmal Sethia v. Malcom Munsif which are opposite on this point. 48. 47. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Ghose relied on a decision reported in (2012) 2 CHN 56 (Prabir Kumar Jalan v. Laxmi Narayan Jalan), and judgment dated 28th March, 2017 in Maganmal Sethia v. Malcom Munsif which are opposite on this point. 48. In Maganmal Sethia (supra) relying on a decision in case of Prabir Kumar Jalan (supra) the Single Bench of this High Court held that the plaintiff on the basis of the present definition of tenant under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 did not recognize the defendant as a tenant in respect of the suit property and has not issued any notice for eviction and the tenant having died in 2009 any legal heir who is ordinarily residing with the defendant would be entitled to a protection of five years from the death of the tenant and thereafter cannot be recognized as a tenant within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 49. I am fully in agreement with Mr. Ghose that the defendant lost his right to occupy suit property as a tenant on and from 10th July, 2006 and I am unable to agree with Mr. Bose that the plaintiffs have made no effort to distinguish the two Division Bench judgments cited by the defendant. 50. The Defendant purported to rely on certain obiter observations made in a decision passed in revisional application in case of Goutam Dey (Supra). In the said decision, the learned Judge was not called upon to interpret Section 2(g) of WBTP Act, 1997 but chose to make some observations on the section while considering an interlocutory proceeding. It is trite law that interlocutory orders are not of binding nature. Moreover, the rent control laws were enacted to give protection to certain tenants. Such persons cannot have any vested rights, by reason of the Act. If the Legislature in its wisdom have limited the period for which an heir of a deceased tenant could continue in possession i.e 5 years from the Act, such persons cannot complain that their 'vested rights' were taken away. It was only a protective right. 51. Mr. Ghose further contended that in any case, the language of the statute is clear, the words 'whichever is later' have to be given a meaning. The legislature does not use words in vain. It was only a protective right. 51. Mr. Ghose further contended that in any case, the language of the statute is clear, the words 'whichever is later' have to be given a meaning. The legislature does not use words in vain. In this connection, reliance is made to the following observation concerning legislative intent in case of C. Venkatachalam v. Ajit kumar C. Shah and others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 707 . "53. We deem it appropriate to briefly deal with the importance of gathering legislative intention while interpreting provisions of law. 54. In Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I, published in the year 2001 (Edited by Wayne Morrison), it has been observed as under:- "The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, of the spirit and reason of the law." 55. A Constitution Bench of this Court in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla and another v. Union of India and Another AIR 1957 SC 628 has laid down that in interpreting the statute the legislative intent is paramount and the duty of the Court is to act upon the true intention of the legislature. 60. It is the bounden duty of the courts to discern legislative intention and interpret the statutes accordingly. The instant case Act and Rules have made specific provisions by which the agents have been permitted to plead and appear on behalf of the parties before the Consumer Forums. Therefore, to interpret it differently would be contrary to legislative intention." 52. Mr. Ghose also relied on a decision in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Fiat India Private Limited and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 332 wherein it has been observed in the context of interpretation of a statute and legislative intent thus : "39. It is well settled that whenever the legislature uses certain terms or expressions of well-known legal significance or connotations, the courts must interpret them as used or understood in the popular sense if they are not defined under the Act or the Rules framed there under. It is well settled that whenever the legislature uses certain terms or expressions of well-known legal significance or connotations, the courts must interpret them as used or understood in the popular sense if they are not defined under the Act or the Rules framed there under. "Popular sense" means "that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter, with which statute is dealing, would attribute to it." 40. The normal rule of interpretation is that the words used by the legislature are generally a safe guide to its intention." 53. The instant suit has been filed by M/s. Nopany & Sons Private Limited and Hanuman Industries Private Limited. Both the plaintiffs are sister concerns, the former being the owner of the suit property and the later being the lessee of the suit property. In support of such facts the plaintiffs have exhibited their documents of title with respect to the suit property as Exhibit "C" and 'D". 54. Exhibit-C is the registered Deed of Conveyance dated April 6, 1981 by which the owner of the suit property, Soumendra Chandra Gooptu transferred the right, title and interest in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff no.1. 55. Exhibit-D is the registered Deed of Lease dated January 10, 1981 by which the suit property was let out by Soumendra Chandra Gooptuto the plaintiff no.2 for a period of 51 years commencing on and from January 01, 1981 till December 31, 2032 with the option on the part of the lessee, i.e. the plaintiff no.2 to renew the lease for a further period of 21 years. The aforesaid documents have been proved by the plaintiffs' first witness, Mr Surajit Pyne and corroborated by the plaintiffs' second witness Mr. Bimal Krishna Nopani. [Reference may be made to question nos.15 to 25 in Chief of PW 1 and question nos.83 to 87 and 104 in Cross of PW 1] [Reference is also made to question nos.12 to 21 in Chief of PW2 and question nos.58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 83 in Cross of PW2]. From perusal of the answer to question nos. 67 and 68 in Chief and question nos.91 and 93 in Cross of the defendant's only witness Smt. Roma Bhagat, it would appear that the defendant has not denied the title or ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. 56. From perusal of the answer to question nos. 67 and 68 in Chief and question nos.91 and 93 in Cross of the defendant's only witness Smt. Roma Bhagat, it would appear that the defendant has not denied the title or ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. 56. The defendant has argued that the defendant or her predecessor-in-interest never had any knowledge that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and stated on oath in answers to question 51 of DW that Gooptu Estate is the landlord but no evidence has been adduced to show that Gooptu Estate is still the owner or the landlord of the suit premises. 57. I have already discussed above in respect of applications (Exhibit-F collectively) made under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 filed with the Rent Controller, Kolkata for the purposes of ascertaining as to who were depositing rent with the Rent Controller. In this regard, reference is made to question nos. 43 to 45 in Chief of the PW 1. The said exhibits would show that Late Gopal Krishna Bhagat, the original defendant and his mother Late Sukhnandan Bhagat admitted to having knowledge of the fact that Soumendra Chandra Gooptu, the original owner of the suit property had sold the same to the plaintiff no.1. The devolution of ownership of the suit property in favour of Soumendra Chandra Gooptu, prior to its purchase by the plaintiff no.1, is evident from the recital nos.1 to 7 of the Deed of Conveyance dated April 6, 1981 [Exhibit-C]. 58. Letter dated 27.6.1974 (Exhibit-7) reflects that Sukhnandan Bhagat and Gopalkrishna Bhagat were intimated by the said Receiver to attorn to Smt. Kanaklata Devi and Sri Soumendra Chandra Gooptu as their landlords in respect of the suit premises. Two rent challans being both dated 07.01.2009 (Exhibit- 8) reveal tendering of rent in respect of entire premises no. 11, Rawdon Street, Kolkata-17 (now known as 11, Sarojini Naidu Sarani) P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-700 017 in respect of upper flat of the said premises, by Gopalkrishna Bhagat as Executor to Estate of Madan Gopal Bhagat for the month of January, 2009 but there is no rent receipts showing payment of rent to the original owners namely, Smt. Kanaklata Devi and Sri Soumendra Chandra Gupta in terms of the request made by the receiver. 59. Answers to the question nos. 59. Answers to the question nos. 63 and 64 in Chief of DW, it appears that the tenancy was attorned in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely Soumendra Chandra Gooptu. Despite that defendant wrongfully maintained that the landlord of the suit property was Gooptu Estates Limited as per her version in reference to question nos. 10 and 51. Thus, the evidence adduced by the defendant is not trustworthy to rely upon. 60. It has also been argued on behalf of the defendant that the original defendant was a bona fide tenant in respect of the suit property and as such the instant suit could not have been instituted without serving any notice under Section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. In agreeing with the submission of Mr. Ghose, I am of the view that the question of issuance of a statutory notice under Section 6(4) of the Act of 1997 does not arise in the instant case inasmuch as the plaintiffs have not sought for eviction of the original defendant or the present defendant under any of the grounds stipulated in Section 6(1) of the Act of 1997 as the original defendant ceased to be a tenant under Section 2(g) of the said Act on and from 10th July, 2006. As such the plaintiffs are not required to give any notice under Section 6(4) of the Act of 1997 upon the original defendant or the substituted defendant, who cannot have any right of tenancy in the suit property since her husband, the original defendant ceased to be a tenant from 10th July, 2006. 61. I have discussed above that Gopal Krishna Bhagat died on 14th March, 2013 as would be evident from the letter dated 12th June, 2013 and the death certificate of late Gopal Krishna Bhagat [Exhibit-E, collectively] issued by the learned advocate of the defendant to the learned advocate of the plaintiffs which reflects that he was survived by his wife, present defendant and three sons, all of whom are residing outside India at that point of time. 62. Thus, in the said letter it was never contended that the three sons were ordinarily living with the original defendant up to the date of his death as the members of his family or were dependent on the original defendant or did not own or occupy any residential premises. 62. Thus, in the said letter it was never contended that the three sons were ordinarily living with the original defendant up to the date of his death as the members of his family or were dependent on the original defendant or did not own or occupy any residential premises. On the contrary, the said letter stated that all the sons were residing outside India. Thus, even assuming although not admitting that late Gopal Krishna Bhagat was the tenant at the time of his death the said three sons could not be termed as tenants under Section 2(g) of the Act. 63. PW 1 has deposed that the sons of late Gopal Krishna Bhagat reside outside the country and it finds corroboration of his statement by Smt. Roma Bhagat who only reside at the suit property as evident from answers to question nos. 26, 27, 37 and 38 in chief and question nos. 107, 109, 110 and 111 in cross and by PW 2 in his answers to question nos.28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 in Chief and question nos.86, 87 and 88 in Cross. It is also depicted from deposition of Roma Bhagat who admitted that her sons are not residents of the suit property vide answers to question no. 57 in chief of DW. No evidence was also adduced by the defendant to establish that at the time of death of late Gopal Krishna Bhagat the three sons were ordinarily living with late Gopal Krishna Bhagat up to the date of his death as the members of his family or were dependent on him or did not own or occupy any residential premises. 64. In case of Amarnath Ramani (supra), the plaintiff/landlord had instituted the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable against one Salil Kumar Dasgupta after issuance of a notice of eviction upon the said defendant. In the written statement, the said defendant stated that the father of the defendant, one Sashanka Sekhar Dasgupta was the original tenant and rent receipt in the name of Sashanka Sekhar Dasgupta was produced to establish such fact. The original defendant had run a case that after the death of Sashanka Sekhar Dasgupta, the sole defendant along with his two brothers had inherited the tenancy. The legal heirs of one of such brothers made an application for addition of parties in the suit which was allowed. The original defendant had run a case that after the death of Sashanka Sekhar Dasgupta, the sole defendant along with his two brothers had inherited the tenancy. The legal heirs of one of such brothers made an application for addition of parties in the suit which was allowed. However, the other brother was not added as a party to the suit. In the above premises, the Hon'ble Appeal Court was pleased not to interfere with the decision of the Learned Trial Court which held that the tenancy continued after the death of the original tenant, Sashanka and his three sons became tenants of the property and since the notice of eviction given by the plaintiff describing Salil as the sole tenant was illegal and as such the suit filed on the basis of such notice was not maintainable. 65. The above cited decision is quite distinguishable from the instant case and question of service of notice of eviction under Section 6(4) of the Act of 1997 does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case made out by the plaintiffs that the defendant cannot be held to be a tenant under Section 2(g) of the Act of 1997 and non-attornment of tenancy, non-service of statutory notice under Section 6(4) of the Act of 1997 cannot be a valid ground to resist eviction. 66. Mr. Bose has also relied on a case of Jaharlal Saha and others v. Pradip Saha and others reported in (2006) 1 CHN 513 , is also distinguishable in the facts of the case. In the context of the above discussion the above issues are decided as under: Issue No.1- affirmative. Issue No.2- affirmative. Issue No.3- affirmative. Issue No.4- affirmative. Issue No.5 67. This issue has not been pressed at the trial, however, from the materials on record it would appear that certificate proceeding in respect of the suit premises has been disposed of and is not pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal. 68. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs in 1981, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs in 2009. This issue has not been pressed at the trial, however, from the materials on record it would appear that certificate proceeding in respect of the suit premises has been disposed of and is not pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal. 68. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs in 1981, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs in 2009. No steps were initially taken for eviction of the defendant from the suit property since the suit property was equitably mortgaged by the plaintiff no.1 in favour of UCO Bank as security for loan advanced by the said UCO Bank in favour of Bilashpur Spinning Mills and Industries Limited, a sister concern of the plaintiffs. After the said loan was paid off, UCO Bank returned the original deed of conveyance to the plaintiffs and only thereafter the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant for eviction as deposed by Mr. B.K. Nopany while answering to question nos. 23 to 27. 69. Thus, this issue is decided and disposed of. Issue Nos.-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 70. The above issues are interlinked hence taken together for conveyance discussion and brevity. 71. There is no evidence to show that the defendant was at the suit premises for sixty three years. Present defendant's husband was tenant according to her as per answer to question no.5 but in reality it was her father in law Madan Gopal Bhagat who was the tenant inducted in the suit premises by erstwhile owner Gooptu Estate. The statement made by her in answer to question no.6 is beyond the pleading and any proof. She maintains that Gooptu Estate is the landlord in answer to question nos.13 & 14 which are obviously hearsay evidence because she was married to Gopalkrishna Bhagat in the year 1954. The rent receipts Exhibits-1 & 2 produced on behalf of the defendant are of the year May, 1954 and April, 1954 answer to question no.32 and Exhibit-3 letter dated 13.09.1961 reflects that it was all one tenancy. I have discussed above in the foregoing issues that there is no regular payment of rent and the rent paid are all in favour of one Gooptu Estate since 1991 but the plaintiff no.1is admittedly the owner by virtue of purchase by a deed of conveyance of the year 1981. I have discussed above in the foregoing issues that there is no regular payment of rent and the rent paid are all in favour of one Gooptu Estate since 1991 but the plaintiff no.1is admittedly the owner by virtue of purchase by a deed of conveyance of the year 1981. The suit was filed in 2009 when Goplakrishna Bhagat was alive so the question of notice to defendant and her son does not arise. Madan Gopal Bhagat a tenant at the suit premises died in 1962. Gopalkrishna being the heir and son of Madan Gopal original tenant died in 2013 whereas the Act 1997 came into force in the year 2006. 72. I have decided that there is no requirement to implead the sons of the deceased original tenant inasmuch as evidence shows that it is the present defendant, the widow of Gopalkrishna in occupation of the entire suit property who does not become tenant with her sons in respect of suit premises and as such is not entitled for protection under Act 1997 and to occupy and remain in possession after 5 years of coming into force of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 which came into effect from July 10, 2006. Therefore, the defendant is in wrongful possession and occupation of suit premises. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs being the owners of the suit premises and the defendant being in wrongful possession, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree to eject the defendant and also to mesne profits or damages for use and occupation of the suit premises until it is delivered to plaintiffs. 73. In the context of my findings, these issues are decided accordingly and I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree in terms of prayer made in the plaint save and except prayer (b) as the claim for mesne profits since July 10, 2006 till the filing of the suit as the reasonable letting value of the suit premises @ Rs. 10,000/- per diem as claimed in paragraph 9 of the plaint has not been proved on evidence, however, plaintiffs shall be entitled for mesne profits/damages at the rate till possession made over to the plaintiffs on an inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure in terms of prayer (c) of the plaint. 74. In the result, suit succeeds. Court fees paid are correct. 74. In the result, suit succeeds. Court fees paid are correct. Hence, Ordered that the suit being C.S. No.03 of 2009 be and the same is decreed on contest against the defendant with costs. 75. Plaintiffs do get a decree against the defendant for vacant possession of the suit premises as described in the schedule as per Annexure-A of the plaint and mesne profits. 76. The defendant is directed to deliver up peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises unto the plaintiffs within two months from the date hereof in delicto the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to put the decree into execution through Court. 77. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to claim damages/mesne profits upon an enquiry for such sum that may be due and payable to the plaintiffs by separate proceedings under the provision of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Certified website copies of the judgment, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.