SUSANTA SEN Vs. KUNAL SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for eviction on account of sub-letting and default in payment of rent complains of a recent order by the trial court accepting the first defendant's written statement some four years after the institution of the suit without appreciating that no plausible explanation had been proffered by the first defendant for the inordinate delay.

(2.) The first defendant is represented after notice and submits that since the writ of summons was neither served nor deemed to have been served on him, it was magnanimous on the first defendant's part to condescend to file the written statement without insisting on the service of the summons; and, rather than the first defendant having been undeservingly rewarded by the order impugned allowing him to contest the suit, the first defendant has allowed a glaring lacuna on the plaintiff's part to be glossed over.

(3.) In the plaint relating to Title Suit No. 536 of 2008 filed in the Alipore Court, the plaintiff claims to be the owner of a second floor flat at premises No.32H, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta-700 020 and says that the suit premises were let out to the first defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.1,100/-. The relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The plaint claims that in March, 2006 the first defendant left for Singapore with his family and settled thereat; that the first defendant had illegally made over possession of the suit premises to the second defendant and his wife who came to be in possession thereof without the written consent of the plaintiff; and, such conduct entitled the plaintiff to possession of the premises. The plaintiff claims to have determined the tenancy of the first defendant by a notice dated September 27, 2007 which was issued to the first defendant by registered post. The plaintiff seeks eviction, arrears rent and mesne profits.