enquiries in 1983, they came to know that the defendant/appellant had initiated suo moto proceedings in the year 1975 and without issuing notice to the plaintiffs, the lease had been determined on 21/08/1975. On the basis of these averments, the plaintiff sought for decreeing the suit. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT 8. The defendant/appellant herein filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was the case of the defendant that suit property 5was originally leased to one Shailendra Nath Mitra for 30 years on 26/09/1905 and after the expiry of the lease on 25/09/1935, the original lessee applied for renewal of the lease. The original lessee expired in the year 1942 and the suit property came to be mutated in the name of his legal heirs and subsequently the lease came to be renewed in favour of his legal heirs on 22/01/1944. It was further pleaded that pendency of partition suit, appointment of receiver was not within the knowledge of the defendant. It was