BISWANATH NANDY Vs. ASISH KUMAR PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is directed against judgment and decree dated 17th of May, 1999 passed by learned Second Court, Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Howrah, in Title Appeal No. 81 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 125 of 1993.

(2.) The appellant as the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the defendant tenant alleging that the defendant was a monthly tenant under him in the suit premises at a rental of Rs. 100 per month payable according to English calender month and that defendant failed to enhance the monthly rental from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 120/- from January, 1993 though there was an oral argument to that effect. The plaintiff being the owner of the suit property is in possession of only two rooms in holding No. 19 Uma Charan Bhattacharya Lane which is a joint property of plaintiff and his brother and said brother was in possession of other two rooms in said house through his tenants. The plaintiff's family consists of himself and his wife, his mother, his three sons aged about 25 years, 22 years and 15 years. The plaintiff required one room for himself and his wife, one room for his mother, three rooms for his three sons, one drawing room, one dining room, one kitchen, one store room and one thakur ghar. There are eight rooms in the suit holding under occupation of seven tenants each having possession of one room and one room was lying in dilapidated condition. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against present defendant and another tenant and intends to file eviction suits against other tenants on the ground of his reasonable requirement of the entire suit house. The plaintiff sent a notice to quit to the defendant who refused to accept the same.

(3.) The defendant contested said suit filing a written statement alleging that plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. The suit property was not properly described and the suit was bad for partial eviction. The notice to quit was neither legal nor valid nor was served upon the tenant. It was further alleged that plaintiff does not require the suit premises for reasonable use and occupation and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.