SAHADEB CHANDRA PAUL Vs. MANMATHA NATH MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal from Appellate Decrees Nos. 1141 to 1145 of 1969. Appeal against the decree of Sri K. C. Roy, Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 461 of 1966, 460 of 1966, 457 of 1966, 462 of 1966 and 459 of 1966 respectively dated the 12th of July, 1968 reversing the decree of Sri N. K. Batabyal, Munsif, 5th Court, Howrah dated the 10th of September, 1966. In Nos. 1141-1142 of 1969 Sahadeb Chandra Paul. Defendant Appellant. In No. 1143 of 1969 : Pankaj Kumar Ghorai alias Roy. do. In No. 1144 of 1969 : Ekkari Roy. do. In No. 1145 of 1969 : Sm. Kamala Dasi. do. Versus. In Nos. 1141 to 1145 of 1969: Manmatha Nath Mondal and and Anr. Plaintiffs Respondents.

(2.) These five appeals are by the five tenants defendants against a common appellate judgment and decrees of reversal following it, whereby the plaintifi's five suits against the tenants defendants for recovery of possession of the respective suit premises were decreed. There were five tenancies comprised in the several rooms held by the defendants all within Municipal Holding No. 160, Kasundia Road, Howrah under the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case is that their mother Sarat Kumari purchased the above Municipal Holding in court auction on September, 29, 1959 and the sale was confirmed on November 10, 1959.

(3.) The possession of the premises was taken through court on February 19, 1960. The defendants had been tenants before Sarat Kumari's purchase in respect of the tenancies mentioned above, more particularly in the schedules of the respective plaints of the suits against the tenants, which were according to Bengali calendar month. Sarat Kumari died on May 19, 1960, leaving the plaintiffs as her heirs and legal representatives. The plaintiffs' case is that they reasonably required the suit premises for building and rebuilding after demolishing the existing structures made of split bamboo and tin-sheets with tin and tiled roofing and these structures were in old and dilapidated condition and without any facilities or modem amenities of habitation. The plaintiffs also required the suit premises for their own use and occupation after re-construction. It was further stated that the defendants were defaulters in payment of rent as they never paid any rent to them or to their predecessor nor did they validly deposit the rent with the Rent Controller. The tenancies were determined by notices to quit and such notices were duly served on the defendants but as they failed to comply with the requisition, the suits were instituted for recovery of "possession of the suit premises on eviction of the defendants therefrom on the aforesaid grounds and also for damages.