ARUP KUMAR ROY Vs. CHANDRA NATH BHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties.

(2.) The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows:

(3.) The defendant contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendant/appellant the plaintiff himself broke some portion of the parapet wall for open and/or easy access to a certain room at the time of marriage of the defendant's daughter. According to the defendant the plaintiff himself arranged for construction of the urinal on the second floor. The defendant denied that he removed the side wall of the skylight and he stated that he did not violate any of the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for own use and occupation. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.