SUKUMARI DASS Vs. MUSST SALEHA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit being T.S. No. 349 of 1981 in the Court of the Learned 3rd Munsif at Alipore. It appears that the plaint of the said suit has been amended and the suit has also been subsequently re-numbered as Title Suit No. 123 of 1995 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Additional Court, Alipore. The plaintiffs filed the said suit for a decree for ejectment and recovery of possession of the 'A' Schedule property to the plaint and also for recovery of possession of the 'B' Schedule property to the plaint and for a declaration that the construction and additions and alterations and conversions beyond the tenanted portion as mentioned in Schedule 'C' of the plaint are unauthorised and are liable to be demolished. The plaintiffs/respondents also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the 'C' and 'D' Schedule property to the plaint and for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from carrying out further constructions at premises No. 55, Gobindapur Road (the suit holding).

(3.) The plaint case, briefly, is that the original defendant was a tenant in respect of the aforesaid 'A' Schedule property at 55, Gobindapur Road, Calcutta - 45 at a rent of Rs. 130/- per month payable according to English calendar month. The plaintiffs' further case is that initially the defendant was inducted in the suit premises at a rental of Rs. 25/- per month which was subsequently raised from time to time when the defendant was allowed to occupy further room. The suit property belonged to the plaintiffs' mother, Fatema Begum, and the original defendant was inducted by the husband of Fatema Begum i.e. Dr. A.M.F. Wahhab and also by A. Wahhab (original plaintiff No. 1). The plaintiffs alleged that the rent used to be realised mostly by A. Wahhab and the property was orally gifted by oral Heba by Mussamat Fatema Begum to her two sons i.e. the plaintiffs and the names of the plaintiffs were recorded as sole owners in the records of Calcutta Corporation. According to the plaintiffs, the original defendant was inducted as a monthly premises tenant in respect of the suit premises on 9th Sepetmber, 1946 on the basis of a letter of tenancy dated 9th September, 1946 duly signed by the original defendant. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that at a point of time the suit property was recorded as holding No. 54, Rahim Ostagar Road, which was subsequently changed into different holding Numbers and ultimately it became 55, Gobindapur Road. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant defaulted in making payment of rents from December, 1978 and has also sub-let the 'A' Schedule property to different persons without any consent from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also alleged that the defendant without any consent from the plaintiffs made unauthorised constructions in December, 1978 and by breaking open lock and key entered into one pucca room mentioned in 'B' Schedule to the plaint which was lying in the khas possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant has let out the unauthorised construction to several persons and he has caused waste and damage to the suit properties and has committed acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108(m) (o) and (p) of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiffs have alleged that they issued ejectment notice to the original defendant but the said defendant did not quit and hence the said suit was filed by the plaintiffs.