RAMESHWAR CHAND Vs. SADHAN CHANDRA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the connected cross-objection arise from the appellate judgment and decree of affirmance decreeing the landlords' suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises held under a tenancy governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. According to the plaintiffs' case, the suit premises comprising shop buildings on plot No. 3980, khatian 492 in Kazi Mohalla, being holding No. 42 within Bankura Municipality were held by the defendants as a monthly tenant-at-will under Bhusan Chandra Dey father of the plaintiffs at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-, By a registered deed of gift dated Bhadra 9, 1370 B. S. (August 26, 1963) executed by their father, the plaintiffs became owners, amongst others, of the said premises and the defendants became their tenants in respect thereof under the same terms and conditions. The month of the tenancy was according to the Bengali calendar month and the rent for every month was payable by the 7th of the succeeding month. The defendants defaulted in payment of rent for months from Falgoon 1369 B. S. to Sravan 1370 B. S. and were not entitled to any protection against eviction. By a subsequent deed of assignment dated Aswin 2, 1370 B. S. (September 19, 1963), the plaintiffs became entitled to the rent for the said period from the defendants. The plaintiffs also reasonably required the suit premises for the use and occupation of the plaintiff No. 3 Tirth Nath Dey who was unemployed and necessity was felt to engage him in the business of cotton goods and ready made garments for which the said plaintiff had adequate funds. The tenancy was terminated with the month of Kartick 1370 B. S. by a notice to quit duly served but the defendants failed to quit and vacate and the suit, in the circumstances, was filed for recovery of possession of the suit premises on ground of reasonable requirement as also default In payment of rent from Falgoon 1369 B. S. to Kartick 1370 B. S. and also for rent for the period ending with Kartick, 1370 B. S. compensation from Agrahayan 1370 B. S.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, admitting the tenancy, originally under Bhusan Chandra Dey but it was denied that the month of the tenancy was according to Bengali Calendar month. It was also contended that rent for every month was payable by the 20th of the following month and accordingly rent for Falgoon 1369 B. S. was tendered to Bhusan Chandra Dey on 12th Chaitra, but he avoided acceptance of the rent under some pretext and further tender to him was made on 22nd following. But as he refused to accept rent, it was remitted by postal money order on 25th Chaitra 1369 B. S. but it was refused. Rent for Falgoon and Chaitra 1369 B. S. was accordingly deposited with the Rent Controller and rent for subsequent months had been so deposited till Bhadra 1370 B. S. in name of Bhusan and thereafter on service of notice of the gift, in name of the plaintiffs. It was accordingly contended that the defendants were not defaulters in payment of rent. It was further denied that the plaintiffs required the suit premises for their own use and occupation as none of the plaintiffs were unemployed, and they lived with their father and looked after his large business in gold and silver works. The notice to quit was invalid and insufficient and the defendants' tenancy had not been thereby determined. Further after the receipt of notice, the defendants remitted all arrears within seven days as required but the same was refused. The suit in the premises should be dismissed.

(3.) The suit was tried on evidence before the learned Munsif and during trial P.W. 1 Bhusan stated that the suit premises were let out to the defendants on 22nd Bhadra 1361 B. S. at the time of their induction. On the basis of the above evidence, it was contended that the tenancy was from 22nd of the Bengali month to 21st of the succeeding month. The learned Munsif held that as the rent was tendered, paid or deposited according to Bengali Calendar month, the tenancy was from 1st to the last day of the Bengali month. Notice was thus valid, legal and sufficient. The learned Munsif further found that the plaintiffs did not require the suit premises for their own use. At the same time, it was found that the defendants were defaulters in payment of rent and not entitled to protection under the Act. The suit was accordingly decreed by judgment dated November 9, 1964 but one year's time was granted to the defendants to vacate.