PARIMAL MITRA Vs. UDAY KUMAR SAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant-tenant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Shri K. K. Samanta, learned Subordinate Judge. Additional court, Krishnagar, dismissing the appeal against the decision of learned munsif, Ranaghat in the suit for ejectment being Title Suit No. 325 of 1969. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 7 commenced a suit far ejectment against the defendant-appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement and of default. The tenancy was alleged to have been terminated by, a notice to quit dated 21. 4. 69 which, was alleged to have been served,on him on 25. 4. 69. During the pendency of the suit the suit premises had been transferred in favour of plaintiff No. 8 under a registered sale deed dated 14th august, 1972. On the prayer of Basanti bhowmick the transferee, she was brought on record as plaintiff No. 8 by an order dated 21. 6. 74. The suit was contested by the defendant. Defaults in payment of rent were denied. Reasonableness of requirement was also disputed. Validity of the notice to quit was questioned. Before the transfer in favour of plaintiff No. 8 the defence against ejectment was struck out under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on 3. 3. 70. This Court was moved against that order in revision being Civil Revision Case No. 860 of 1970 which was rejected and the rule was discharged on 6. 11. 73. Be that as it may, the learned Munsif overruled all the defence contentions and passed a decree in favour of the landlord.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the tenant defendant came up in appeal. This appeal was dismissed on 8. 6. 76 upholding the findings of the learned Munsif. Mr. Sudhis Das Gupta, learned Advocate for the appellant raises three points namely, 1)that the tenancy was not terminated by a valid notice; 2)that no decree could be passed on the ground of, default, and 3) that the transferee landlord cannot be added as a plaintiff in a composite suit on the grounds of reasonable requirement and default.

(3.) AS to the first point it is contended by him that previous to the notice to quit dated 21. 4. 69 the plaintiffs served another notice of ejectment on 4. 6. 68 (vide Ext. A ). It is said to have been sent under registered post on 4. 6. 68 (vide acknowledgement receipt, ext. 3a ). It is argued by Mr. Das Gupta that earlier notice having not been withdrawn by the second notice it would operate and in that case the suit for ejectment on the subsequent notice (Ext. 1) was invalid. In order to find out so, it must be shown that the tenancy had been determined by an earlier valid notice. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show on what date the notice (Ext,. 1) had been served on the appellant. The appellant who examined himself as D. W. 1 was peculiarly silent on this point. In the above facts and circumstances this contention of Mr. Das Gupta cannot be accepted.