NIKHIL CHANDRA DEY Vs. SANKARLAL CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the defendant arises out of a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement as also under section 13 (1) (k) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The suit property originally belonged to one Balaram Chandra. Balaram chandra had erected pucca construction on such land and for the purpose, he, it is alleged in the plaint, took a loan of rs. 1150/- in Baisakh 1364 , frorn Nikhi chandra De (defendant no. 1 ). At that time it was agreed between them that the loan would be interest free. But the defendant would carry on his cloth business in that room and the amount of advance would- be adjusted from the monthly rental of Rs. 8. 33 payable by the said defendant no. 1 and the period of monthly tenancy was fixed to run from 1st day to the last date of each month upon these terms. After the completion of the pucca construction, the defendant no. 1 was inducted as a monthly tenant in the suit premises and after that Rs. 250/-as rent payable by the defendant was adjusted from the advance of Rs. 1150/- and normally only Rs. 900/- was due to him. Subsequently, on 20th of Falgoon 1366 B. S. corresponding to 4th of March, 1960 the parties executed and registered one lease indenture in duplicate and there the parties came to terms that the defendant no. 1 would occupy the suit premises upto 1375 B. S. as tempoary ejectable bharatia tenant. It appears that Balaram Chandra had brought one suit against the defendant no. 1 which was ultimately dismissed. He thereafter sold the suit premises to the present plaintiffs and the present plaintiffs brought suit against Nikhil Chandra Dey original owner.

(2.) THE suit -was contested by the defendant no. 1 only who filed a lengthy written statement and during the trial the learned advocate mainly relied upon two provisions of relevant statute; One is contained in sub-section 6 of section 13 and the other is contained in section 4 (3a) of the West Beng-al premises Tenancy Act. His points of defence are that the defendant no. 1 is the tenant in respect of the suit property and as such he is entitled to a notice as contemplated in section 13 (6)and that the plaintiffs being the purchasers of the suit premises cannot bring the suit before expiry of three years of their purchase. Secondly, the question was that as the notice under section 13 (6) as contemplated therein has not been given, the suit is not maintainable.

(3.) IT was held by the court of first instance that section 4 (3a) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act is not applicable inasmuch as no decree was given for the reasonable requirement. The appellate Court gave a decree under section 13 (1) (k) of the Act.