BISWANATH CHATTERJEE Vs. AJIT KUMAR SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant-tenant's appeal against a concurrent judgment, decreeing plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession. The plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of premises No. 11-D, Monoharpukur Road and the defendant had been a tenant under him in respect of Suit No. 1 in the ground floor thereof at a rental of Rs. 75/- per month and pump charge of Rs. 5/- per month, the tenancy being according to English Calendar month. The defendant became defaulter in payment of rent from November 1966 as alleged deposits with the Rent Controller were invalid. It was alleged, that the defendant was guilty of conduct which was a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours including the landlord as he forcibly prevented landlord's men from using a passage leading to the pump room and inspecting the reservoir of water which supplied water to seven flats of the said premises and if the pump and motor were damaged supply of water to tenants would be curtailed. It was alleged that the tenancy was duly determined by a notice to quit but as the defendant failed to vacate, the suit was instituted praying a decree for recovery of possession on eviction of the defendant therefrom on the aforesaid grounds.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant, who filed written statement denying all material allegations in the plaint. It was stated that he was not a defaulter in payment of rent as rent for November, 1966 was deposited with the Rent Controller as the landlord refused to accept rent and rent thereafter was duly deposited with the Rent Controller. As to the passage leading to the pump room, it was stated that the said passage was within his tenancy and it was also denied that he was guilty of any conduct which would amount to nuisance or annoyance as alleged. An additional written statement was filed by the defendant and it was stated that rent was tendered every month to the landlord and on his refusal it was being deposited with the Rent Controller and as such he was not a defaulter. In those circumstances it was submitted that the suit should be dismissed.

(3.) The suit was tried in evidence before the learned Munsif, who held that the notice determining the tenancy was valid and legal and was duly served. It was further held that the passage leading to the pump room was not a part of the defendant's tenancy and it was unthinkable that it could be used only on permission of the defendant as claimed. It was found that the defendant was guilty of causing nuisance or annoyance to the landlord and inmates of the house. The learned Munsif further found that there was no evidence to indicate that the landlord refused any Money Order in respect of rent remitted to him. The rent for October, 1966 was sent by Money Order which was duly accepted but as far as rent for November, 1966 the story of tender by the tenant was a myth. Accordingly it was held that the tenant was a defaulter from November, 1966. In those circumstances the suit was decreed for recovery of possession as also for mesne profits from Nov., 1968 to be ascertained in a proper proceeding under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.