SRI NANI KUNDU Vs. BANI BHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred against a judgement and decree dated 25.03.2008 passed by Sri B. Das, learned A.D.J., Alipore in appeal No. 236 of 2007 thereby affirming the judgement and decree dated 29.06.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Alipore.

(2.) THE thumbnails sketch of the plaintiff's case is as follows :- Plaintiff Smt. Bani Bhadra is the owner of the suit premises. She acquires a property by way of partition with her co-sharer on the strength of registered deed of partition dated 05.09.1981. Defendant No. 1 Sri Sankar Kundu was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 135 payable according to English Calendar month. It is the plaintiffs specific case that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent in respect of the suit premises from November 1982 onwards. It is further alleged that the defendant Sri Sankar Kundu sublet or assigned the suit premises to defendant No. 2 Sri Nani Kundu without any written / verbal consent of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 was not residing in the suit premises and he shifted to a different place after subletting the tenanted portion to Sri Nani Kundu. THE tenancy of the defendant No. 1 was terminated by way of notice of ejectment under Section 13 of W.B.P.T. Act, 1956. Plaintiff Smt. Bhadra required the suit premises for her own use and occupation as she has no other suitable alternative accommodation. THE defendant refused to vacate the suit premises in spite of receipt of the notice. Hence the suit.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), first Court at Alipore defendant/ appellant being a tenant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Alipore same was transferred to the A.D.J. (16th Court) Alipore and learned A.D.J, after hearing both side came to a finding that appellant/ defendant is a sub-tenant in respect of the suit premises. The notice to quit and vacate was duly served upon the defendant. Plaintiff/respondent who was occupying a rented house at Konnagar reasonably required the suit premises for her personal use and occupation and as a result learned A.D.J. (16th Court) Alipore dismiss the appeal on contest but without cost on 25.03.2008.