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 further stated that receiver did not apply for the renewal of the lease, whereas late Nalininath Mitra had applied for the same on 23/12/1972 which could not be sanctioned as necessary documents were not filed and no application had been filed by other lessees. It was further contended that lease hold land came to be resumed and lease came to be determined as the lessee violated the conditions of the lease. On these amongst other averments made in the written statement, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT 9. The Learned Trial Court framed the following 6 issues for its determination. a. Is the suit maintainable in law? b. Is the suit property correctly described? c. Is the order passed in Resumption Case No.6/75 illegal, void and without jurisdiction?