SOUMITRA GOSWAMI Vs. SWAPAN CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party No. 1 as plaintiff (hereafter the plaintiff) instituted a suit for eviction against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and the opposite parties 2 and 3 on the ground of default, subletting and reasonable requirement. The said suit, registered as Ejectment Case No. 385/ 2004, is pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Sealdah. The original defendant Mihir Kanti Goswami (since deceased) entered appearance in the suit and on April 19, 2005, filed his written statement. After his death on January 5, 2007, the plaintiff applied for substitution and such prayer was allowed; the opposite parties 2 and 3 being the widow and elder son respectively and the petitioner, the younger son, were substituted as defendants in place and stead of the deceased defendant. It also appears that during his lifetime, the deceased defendant filed an application under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter the Act) and proceedings were concluded finally on May 14, 2010 determining the arrears of rent. The deceased defendant had deposed as witness in course of consideration of the application under section 7(2) of the Act, After substitution was effected on his death, the opposite party No. 3 herein being the brother of the petitioner had deposed as P.W.2.

(2.) It appears that on or about January 17, 2011, the petitioner filed two applications before the Trial Court, - one seeking leave to contest the case and for direction on the plaintiff to serve copy of the plaint (hereafter the former application) and other documents and the other under section 7(2) of the Act urging the Trial Court to determine relationship of landlord and tenant and arrears of rent (hereafter the latter application).

(3.) In the former application, the petitioner claimed that he was not aware of the instant suit at any point of time. He has been struggling for existence all day, seldom getting any spare time. Only a week before filing of the application, he learnt about pendency of the suit. On engaging a learned Advocate, he obtained information that the suit was pending but since no copy of plaint had been served on him, he is not in a position to take appropriate defence. In the latter application, it was, inter alia, alleged that rent was being paid regularly in Court by the petitioner's elder brother, a portion being shared by him, and that there was no default.