BRATINDRANATH MUKHERJEE Vs. CANS AND CLOSURES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 12, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Sealdah in Title Appeal No.30 of 2006 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated January 25, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.1 of 1991.

(2.) The plaintiff / appellant herein being the sole trustee to the Trust Estate of R.N. Mukherjee is the landlord in respect of the premises in suit as described in the schedule to the plaint and the defendant / respondent was the tenant in respect of the said premises in suit at a rental of Rs.9,035/- as per English Calendar Month. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment, recovery of khas possession, mesne profits, damages and other reliefs against the defendant contending, inter alia, that the defendant / respondent sublet the premises in suit to other companies. They made additions and alterations of the premises in suit without the consent of the landlord and defaulted in payment of rent for the month of July and August 1990. The plaintiff served a notice to quit upon the defendant, but the defendant did not vacate the premises in suit. So, the plaintiff / appellant has filed the suit for the reliefs already stated.

(3.) The defendant / respondent is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained the plaint. The tenant has contended that the alleged notice to quit was bad in law, invalid and not sufficient. The plaintiff / appellant issued another notice of eviction subsequently. The allegation of subletting for consideration without the consent of the landlord was not true. The tenant is not a defaulter as claimed by the plaintiff and so, the suit should be dismissed.