LAKSHMAN CHANDRA SAHA Vs. BANSARI MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ejectment Suit No. 1241 of 1976 was filed in the City Civil Court, Calcutta against the defendant. The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of premises No. 173-A, Upper Chitpur Road, Calcutta, now renumbered 562-A, Rabindra Sarani, P. S. Shampukur. According to the plaintiff, the defendant became a tenant in respect of two rooms only on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 60.00, payable according to the English Calendar month. There is no dispute regarding the rate of rent, but the defendant pleaded that he not only rented two rooms on the ground floor, but also a space for kitchen, common bath and privy. The grounds of ejectment were default since January, 1975, conversion of the tenancy to residential purpose from business purpose and reasonably requirement. The plaintiff also referred to the fact that he served notices to evict dated 22-12-75, requiring the defendant to evict with the expiry of the last date of January, 1976. The two ejectment notices came up with postal remarks "not claimed". The plaintiff averred that a similar notice was served through her son, but the defendant, although present, refused to accept the notice and so a copy of the notice was affixed to the outer door. The plaintiff claimed that an endorsement to that effect was made by the plaintiff's son, who went to serve the notice.

(2.) The plaintiff later amended. the plaint. The ground of reasonable requirement was elucidated by giving a full account of the members of the plaintiff's family. By the amendment, the plaintiff also placed on record that she was not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation. The plaintiff sought to clarify the position with regard to the accommodation available in premises No. 562-A, Rabindra Sarani and in 17-1, Tarak Chatterjee Lane. The defendant, in his written statement, denied all the grounds. The service of notice of ejectment was also denied. The default was explained and it was submitted that as the plaintiff did not accept any rent in lump sum under the previous arrangement, the defendant began to deposit rent with the Rent Controller, Calcutta and after the institution of the suit, in Court, With regard to the ground of reasonable requirement, it was submitted that the plaintiff had sufficient accommodation in Tarak Chatterjee Lane premises and also in premises No. 173-A Upper Chitpur Road. The case that the defendant converted the property for residential use from business purpose was also denied.

(3.) The parties went to trial with these pleadings.