LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-122

GOUR CHANDRA CHANDA Vs. JOYDEB SINGHA

Decided On September 29, 2011
GOUR CHANDRA CHANDA Appellant
V/S
JOYDEB SINGHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:

(3.) The defendant No.3 only appeared in the said suit to contest the same and filed written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint but admitting that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and that the said Dulal Chandra (father of the defendant No.3) was a tenant under the plaintiff at a rental of Rs. 70/- as per Bengali Calendar Month and that after the demise of the said Dulal Chandra the defendant No.3 had become a direct tenant at a rental of Rs. 101/- as per Bengali Calendar month on the basis of an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 on 7 th Sravana 1399 B.S. The defendant No.3's case was that neither the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 nor the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 had any tenancy right in the suit property. The defendant No.3 further alleged that the plaintiff did not serve any notice either upon the defendant No.3 or upon the other defendants. The defendant No.3 further stated in the written statement that the other defendants do not have a cordial relationship with the defendant No.3 owing to some family affairs and the defendant No.3 is living separately from the other defendants. The defendant No.3 has also alleged that the said Dulal Chandra used to pay rent to the plaintiff and subsequently the defendant No.3 also regularly paid rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not issue any rent receipt either in favour of the said Dulal Chandra or in favour of the said defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 alleged in the written statement that after the creation of the new tenancy in favour of the defendant No.3 the other defendants have no right in the suit property and they have no locus standi to claim any such right as tenant in the suit property and the defendant No.3 is the only tenant under the plaintiff. The defendant No.3 further alleged in the written statement that the defendant No.3 had sent the rental amount through money order on 13.03.2001 and 16.04.2001 but the same were refused.