SADHAN CHANDRA CHATTERJEE Vs. S B TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of two suits for ejectment brought by the plaintiff respondent against the respective appellants who were the tenants in respect of the particular premises concerned. The disputed premises, in the first case, comprised room No. 19 on the ground floor of premises No. 1, Goenka Lane. Calcutta, of which the appellant Sadhan chandra Chatterjee was the tenant in occupation, originally, at the contractual rental of Rs. 85/- per month, standarised subsequently by the Rent Controller at Rs. 44/- per month, with effect from September 1, 1954. The contractual month of the tenancy was according to Hindi calendar, from Badi 1st to Sudi 15th of each Hindi calendar month but the Rent Controller, in standardising the rent, gave effect to the standard rent, from September 1, 1954. as we have said above, presumably having in mind the English calendar. In the other appeal, the disputed, premises comprised two rooms, Nos. 18 and 22, on the ground floor of the very same premises No. 1, Goenka Lane, Calcutta, which were occupied by the other appellant Sudhir Chandra Dey, at the original contractual rental of Rs. 135/- per month, subsequently standarised at the reduced figure of Rs. 66/- per month by the Rent Controller with effect from September 1, 1954, as in the other case, the contractual month of the tenancy being, in this case too as in the said other case, according to the Hindi calendar, as detailed hereinbefore. The present suits were brought against the aforesaid two tenants on April 3, 1958, after service of the requisite notices to quit, expiring with Sudi, 15th Falgun, Sambat year 2013, corresponding to March 16, 1957, the notice to quit in either case, being dated January 14, 1957, and served on the tenant concerned on or about January 16. 1957.

(2.) IN the two plaints, the material allegation of the plaintiff was that the defendant in either case has been guilty of requisite defaults under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. which would disentitle them from the benefit or protection of the said Act.

(3.) THERE were various defenses raised to the two suits including the defence of maintainability of the same at the instance of the original plaintiff and the added plaintiffs, the original plaintiff being the Receiver and the added plaintiffs being the owners of the disputed premises, to whom possession was directed to be made over by the Receiver under an order of this Court on the Original Side.