SUNILENDU SENGUPTA Vs. BROJODULAL MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th June, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th Court, North 24-Parganas, Barasat in Title Appeal No.140 of 1996 affirming the judgment and decree of eviction dated 28th June, 1996 and 4th July, 1996 passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No.282 of 1990.

(2.) RESPONDENT as plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellant-tenant, alleging default, and subletting after sending a notice under Registered Post with AD which returned with postal remarks refused.

(3.) MR. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the plaint was conspicuously silent about the name of the alleged sub-tenant as well as the specific date of starting of sub-tenancy and that in view of vagueness in the plaint learned Courts below should not have passed any decree on the ground of subletting. MR. Asit Baran Raut, learned counsel for the landlords, on the other hand, submits that the defendant / tenant did not make any such allegation of vagueness in his written statement and rather specifically admitted that presently his elder brother Amalendu Bhusan Sengupta was residing in the suit premises for looking after the suit premises on the strength of a power of attorney executed by the appellant tenant. He further submits that both the parties also led evidence on that score and hence it cannot be said that the defendant/tenant was prejudiced in any way for said alleged vagueness in the plaint.