ZUBAIDA BEGUM @ ZUBEDA KHATUN Vs. ANWAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenants have filed the instant second appeal challenging the concurrent finding of facts raising a question of law whether a suit for eviction of a tenant shall be defeated and/or rendered non-maintainable if one of the heirs of the deceased tenant is not impleaded as party therein.

(2.) The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for eviction of tenants inter alia on the ground of reasonable requirement and default. The said suit stood decreed both on the ground of reasonable requirement and default by the trial court and such judgment and decree is affirmed by the first appellate court.

(3.) The plaint proceeds on the assertion that originally the suit premises belonged to one Abdul Wahed, who sold, transferred and conveyed the same to the plaintiff no. 1 and his brother, namely, Wahed Ali by executing and registering the deed of sale in the year 1997. Subsequently, the said brother, namely, Wahed Ali sold his undivided share therein to the plaintiff no. 2, the wife of plaintiff no. 1, in the year 1999 and, thus, the plaintiffs became the owners of the said suit property. Initially, the suit premises was let out to one Zainal Abedin as monthly tenant in respect of one room with varandah having tile shed on the ground floor at a monthly rental of Rs. 25/- payable according to the English calendar. The original tenant died on 22nd November 2000. A notice dated 18th November 2003 was served upon the defendants/appellants under Section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and thereafter the suit for eviction was filed against them. It is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiffs are residing at the tenanted premises i.e. 11-D, Charu Khansama Lane with great difficulties and, therefore, reasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation and for the occupation of their dependants. It is further pleaded that the family of the plaintiffs consists of themselves with five school going children and such rented accommodation is not reasonable suitable for their occupation. It is further stated that the defendants have defaulted in payment of rent since November 2000 and, therefore, exposed themselves liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises.