SRI ANNADA KUMAR BISWAS Vs. SANDHYA RANI BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of the Court was as follows: This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

(2.) THE appellant filed T. S. No. 333 of 1997 against the respondent and other persons for a declaration that he is a tenant under the respondent in respect of the property in dispute. THE appellant's case was that he being a monthly tenant under the respondent at an yearly rent of Rs.5000/- the appellant has been in exclusive possession of the suit property where he carries on his business. THE respondent and another defendant in the said suit contested the said suit by filing written statement. THE respondent's case was that the appellant who came from Bangladesh was permitted to carry on the business of the respondent as a caretaker so that the appellant and his family could make a living out of the income from the said business, as the relationship was cordial. According to the respondent, the appellant committed a breach of trust and procured certain paper concerning the business in his own name to make a wrongful gain. THE respondent's further case was that the appellant was never a tenant in the suit property.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court found inter alia that the appellant is a tenant under the respondent and not a caretaker. It appears from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that it was argued on behalf of the appellant that as long as the appellant's suit for declaration of tenancy- right is pending and until the appellant is adjudicated as a tenant it cannot be said that the appellant is a tenant in the suit premises. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant before the learned Trial Court that the notice dated 18.9.1998 cannot be treated as a notice under Section 13(6) of the said West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the said notice is not legally valid and sufficient. THE learned Trial Court found that from Ext.7 (notice) it will appear the respondent did not accept the appellant as a tenant and even in evidence the respondent's witness was not ready to accept the appellant as a tenant and, therefore, the status of the appellant would depend upon the result of T. S. No. 333 of 1997. THE learned Trial Court found that no cause of action for T. S. No. 158 of 2002 arose on and from 1.11.1998 after the expiry of October, 1998 and that the cause of action will arise on the date of result of the T. S. No. 333 of 1997 and that even though notice was served upon the appellant the said notice is not legal, valid and sufficient and the said notice cannot be treated as a notice under Section 13(6) of the said Act of 1956. In view of such findings the learned Trial Court did not decide the issues regarding default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement for own use and occupation.