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.) THE present suit was filed on February 26, 2008 and the writ of summons was attempted to be served by registered post on the first defendant which returned with the postal endorsement "not claimed ". The plaintiff refers to an order dated November 20, 2008 directing substituted service of the writ of summons to be effected and insists that the first defendant has all along been aware of this suit and emphasises on the first defendant 's sister admitting receipt of the notice to quit at the suit premises and the present occupants thereat being an uncle and aunt of the first defendant. The first defendant 's sister applied to be added as a party to the present suit. Such application, filed in early 2010, claimed, inter alia, that the first defendant and his family had left for Singapore and the sister enjoyed a good relationship with the first defendant. The sister also asserted, at paragraph 8 of her application for being added as a party to the instant suit, as follows: "8) That by receiving the money order from the present applicant tenancy of the suit premises has been created in favour of the present applicant, so, in order to avoid the situation, the present plaintiff through his Solicitor sent a letter to the defendant No.1 at his address at Singapore with a false allegation that the defendant No.1 has created subtenancy by delivering possession of the suit property tot he defendant No.2. " The sister of the first defendant also maintained in her said application that the second defendant herein did not reside in the suit premises and that it was such sister who was in exclusive possession thereof. By an order of February 24, 2010, the sister 's application was dismissed. A civil revisional petition carried from such order to this court was dismissed with the observation that the sister was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit.