ANIL CHANDRA NAG Vs. SANTIMAY BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The instant appeal is directed a against the judgment and decree dated 10th August, 1977 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Jalpaiguri in O.C. Appeal No. 48 of 1976 reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 21st June, 1976 passed in O.C. Suit No. 82 of 1971 passed by the learned Munsif, Jalpaiguri.

(2.) Plaintiff/respondents brought the said O.C., Suit No. 82 of 1971 against the appellant/defendant for ejectment. The plaintiff case was that he purchased the suit land by a registered deed dated 27.2.68 and became the owner of the same. The plaintiff's dwelling house is on a portion of the disputed land. A portion of the land was lying vacant. In the early part of 1968, the defendant approached the plaudit to allow him occupy the vacant land for the purpose of running a coal depot. The defendant assured the plaintiff that he would vacate the same whenever he demanded. The tenancy agreed upon in respect of the suit land commenced on and from 1st April 1968 and the rent was fixed at Rs. 20/- and it was increased to Rs. 28/-. The defendant raised a structure on the land en condition that he would dismantle the same when he would vacate the suit land. The defendant was a defaulter from April 1969. The plaintiff required the suit, land for guilds his own house so the plaintiff issued a nonce through his lawyer on 23.9.70 under the West Bengal Non-Agricultura1 Tenancy Act determining the tenancy but inspite of the notice the defendant did not vacate the land. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement in which it was contended inter alia that the plaintiff let out to the defendant not only a vacant land but also structure in a dilapidated condition thereon at a monthly rent 6f Rs. 20/- arid it was agreed that the defendant would dismantle the structure and build a new structure for the purpose of running the business of store and selling soft coke etc. and would construct suitable culvert and partway at his own cost. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 28/-. The alleged default in payment of rent was denied. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff previously served n combined notice through his lawyer under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, admitting thereby that the tenancy was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It was contended that the tenancy was governed the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the notice was, therefore, ba5 in law and the suit was not maintainable.