DIPAK BASU Vs. LOCH LOMOND LODGE P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who has been appointed Receiver by the High Court Calcutta in Suit No. 1683 of 1964 (Sitaram Dhelia vs. Basdeo Dhelia & Others) has brought this suit for eviction against the defendant.

(2.) He states as follows: He has been appointed Receiver, inter alia, of the premises No., 26, Tarachand Dutta Street now re-numbered as premises No. 13, Pretoria Street, Calcutta. The defendant was a monthly tenant of the said premises under the plaintiff as Receiver at a rent of Rs. 885.50p. per month payable according to English Calender month. The plaintiff in or about 2nd September 1967 came to know that the defendant without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff had wrongfully and illegally made material and substantial structural additions and alterations to the said premises particulars whereof are set out below : Particulars of additions and alterations. (1) Construction of a two rooms cottage with bathroom and privies in the Lawn on the Northern Side of the premises. (2) Constructed yucca verandah on Eastern Side of the premises. (3) Constructed pucca garages on the Eastern Side of the premises. (4) Constructed 6 shop-rooms in front of the premises i.e. on the Western side. (5) Constructed a store room in the lawn of the said premises. The defendant without previous consent in writing of the plaintiff has wrongfully sublet different portion of the premises in suit to several subtenants, particulars of such sub-tenancies are set out hereunder : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_269_CALLT1_1991Html1.htm</FRM> On 6th November 1967 the plaintiff duly served a combined notice u/s. 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and ups. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring the defendant to quit and vacate the premises on the expiry of the month of December 1967. Notwithstanding such notice, the defendant is continuing in wrongful occupation of the same. The plaintiff, therefore, claims mesne profit in respect of the suit at the rate of Rs. 50/- per diem from 1st January 1968 till the recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiff also claims damages for the said wrongful additions and alterations to the said premises which is assessed at Rs. 22,250/-. Hence this present suit for eviction, mesne profits and damages.

(3.) The defendant has filed a written statement contesting the suit for eviction etc. The defendant contends that the suit is misconceived and not maintainable inasmuch as the purported notice to quit dated November 6, 1967 on the basis of which the suit was instituted has been withdrawn by the plaintiff by the plaintiff's solicitor's letter dated December 7, 1968. The defendant denies that the defendant made material additions and alterations to the premises in suit. The defendant states that all these constructions were existing all along and even prior to the introduction of the defendant company as a tenant under the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff.