SANTI NATH SHA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgement and decree passed by the Judge l0th bench, City Civil Court Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.237 of 1978. The facts which are necessary for disposing of the appeal may be briefly stated as follows :- The plaintiff respondent filed the above ejectment suit against t present appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement and other grounds. The present respondent filed an application under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for striking of the defence of the defendant appellant on the ground that he did not comply with the provisions of section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(2.) Even though the appellant filed the written objection against the said application he did not appear on 1.7.82 when the said application was taken up for hearing and the learned Trial Judge allowed the plaintiff respondent application under section 17 (31) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy A and struck out the defence. Thereafter as the defendant did not appear to contest the suit on 6.8.82 i.e. the date for peremptory hearing the learn, Trial Judge on considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff respondent decreed the plaintiff respondent's suit for ejectment on the ground of reasonable requirement. The present appellant thereafter filed in application under Order 9 rule 13 of C.P. code to set aside the ex parte decree and also another application under section 151 C.P. code for setting aside the order dated 1.7.82 striking out the defence against delivery of possession. The learned Trial Judge on hearing the application under Order 9 rule 13 C.P. code registered as a Misc. case allowed the same and set aside the ex parte decree on 16.1.84 and restored the suit to file for hearing. Then defendant filed another application under section 151 C.P. code praying for condoning the delay in depositing the rent for the month of Falgun 1387 B.S. On 4.4.84 the learned Trial Judge refused to vacate the original order dated 1.7.82 striking out the defence ex parte and to condone the delay depositing the rent for the month of Falgun 1387 B.S. Then the present appellant moved High Court in revision against the said order and the High Court in revision dismissed the said application affirming the order passed by the learned Trial Judge refusing to condone the delay on the ground the learned Trial Judge in view of the decision in Prabhabati Chakroborty v. Satyendra Chatterjee reported in 1987(1) Calcutta Law Journal page 629 had no jurisdiction to condone to delay in respect of the deposit 4 rent made with the rent controller. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge took up the hearing of the suit. As the defence against delivery of possession was struck out the learned Trial Judge permitted the present appellant only to cross-examine the witnesses adduced by the plaintiff and did not permit the defendant appellant to adduce any evidence in support of his defence.

(3.) Before the learned Trial Judge the plaintiff respondent pressed for ejectment of the defendant appellant only on the ground of reasonable requirement and the learned Trial Judge on considering the accommodation available with the plaintiff and the accommodation required regard being had to the members of the family of the plaintiff respondent accepted the case of the plaintiff respondent that he reasonably required the whole suit premises for his own occupation for himself and members of his family. He, therefore, granted the plaintiff respondent the decree for ejectment. Being aggrieved the defendant appellant has preferred this appeal.