LAL BEHARI SASMAL Vs. KANAK KANTI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Uluberia on January 5, 1955.

(2.) The appellant gets into the premises in controversy here by virtue Of an unregistered Patta, Ext. A, executed by Bhupati Nath Roy on behalf of his minor son Kanak Kanjti Roy, the plaintiff in the trial Court and respondent to this appeal. At the trial, Kanak Kanti was no longer of non-age. To be exact, he was 32. Be that as it may, the Patta stipulates inter alia that the appellant is given the premises for 25 years from the 1st Falgun 1346 B. S. corresponding to mid-February, 1940, on a monthly rental of Rs. 3-8-0 with the right to make it habitable by repairs and additions of rooms at his own expense. More, for the aforesaid period of 23 years, the appellant will have the right to remain there undisturbed by the grantor or his successors in interest. The date of the Patta is Magh 12, 1346 B. S. corresponding to January 26, 1940. Twenty-five years from mid-February 1940, expire on or about mid-February 1965.

(3.) By his judgment and decree dated July 25, 1955, the learned Munsif disallowed the prayer for eviction and decreed the suit only for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 56/-. So he did holding inter alia that as the lease had not yet run out, no eviction could be made. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Howrah, by his judgment and decree dated May 2, 1956, decreed the Suit for eviction as well holding among other things that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not available to the appellant and that he could not, therefore, claim protection from eviction for the life of the Patta: a period of 25 years from mid-February, 1940. Hence this second appeal by the tenant defendant.