RAMESH CH BHATTACHARJEE Vs. NAGENDRA N MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the pltfs. for the recovery of the ground floor of premises No. 88/2, Wellesley Street, Calcutta. The deft. is said to be a monthly tenant in the said ground floor at a rent of Rs. 135 p. m. whose tenancy was determined by a notice to quit given on 25-5-1949 by the pltfs. solicitors. The ground on which possession is claimed is bona fide requirement for the purposes of building & rebuilding & for the purposes of the occupation of the pltfs. There is also an allegation that the deft. in violation of the terms of the tenancy caused extensive damage to the said premises. The prayers in the plaint include claim for possession, mesne profits & damages to the extent of of Rs. 20,000. The suit was filed on 1-8-1949 when the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1948 was in operation.

(2.) The original written statement of the deft. pleads that he has been working a printing press for several years with the knowledge & consent of the previous owners as well as of the pltfs. It admits that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy. It also admits the notice to quit. In the written statement it is pleaded that cracks to the walls & damage to the floor are due to the failure & neglect of the owners, previous & present, to effect necessary repairs, notwithstanding repeated requests. The original written statement was filed on 19-9-1949. Then there was an appln. for amendment & an order was made on 21-3-1950 by my learned brother Sarkar J. The purpose of that amendment is to delete the admission of monthly tenancy & to introduce the case of a tenancy for the purpose of running a printing press. The idea was by the amendment to make out a case of a manufacturing tenancy so that the notice to quit could be questioned.

(3.) Mr. B. C. Mitter appearing with Mr. S. Das for the deft. raised the following issues : (1) Do the pltfs. bona fide & or reasonably require the premises for the purpose of building & rebuilding or for their own occupation ? (2) (a) What are the terms & purposes of the deft's. tenancy ? (b) Has he violated any of such terms ? (3) Has the deft. caused damage to the premises in suit as alleged in paras. 4 & 5 of the plaint ? If so, what is the nature & extent of such damage ? (4) Has the tenancy of the deft. been validly .determined by the notice dated 25-5-1949 ? (5) What relief, if any, are the pltfs. entitled to ? Mr. Meyer with Mr. S. P. Mitter, appearing for the pltf. had accepted those issues.