RAMDAYEE Vs. DHANRAJ KOCHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained against an Order of the Third Subordinate Judge at Alipore in Title Suit No. 50 of 1962 made on the 21st January, 1970. By this Order the Subordinate Judge has overruled two objections to the maintainability of the Suit. The first objection was with regard to misjoinder of parties and cause of action. And the second objection was based on Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to try the Suit.

(2.) Briefly speaking the facts are that the plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 24 Russa Road South, Post Office, Tollygunge in the District of 24-Parganas which subsequently came to be known as premises No. 91. Deshapran Sasmal Road. The building appears to be a fairly large one consisting of 32 rooms and three shop rooms facing the road. The plaintiff's case is that originally the defendant No. 1 became a tenant in respect of 23 rooms in this property. These 23 rooms have been described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. In 1959, alleges the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 and her husband the defendant No. 2 resisted the plaintiff's ingress to and egress from the premises in Suit. In 1960, the defendant No. 1 started depositing the rents payable in respect of the aforesaid 23 rooms with the Rent Controller but in making these deposits the defendant No. 1 described herself to be the tenant of the entire premises. The plaintiff's further allegation is that in January 1961 both the defendants trespassed into the other nine rooms which we have mentioned above and these nine rooms have been described in schedule 'B' to the plaint. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant No. 2 has converted all the thirtytwo rooms aforesaid into a Factory without the plaintiff's consent although the original tenancy for 23 rooms was for residential purposes only. In the last paragraph, that is to say, paragraph 16 of the plaint it is alleged: "That in the facts and circumstances set forth in this plaint the defendant No. 2 is made a party ..... (to) this Suit and more particularly for the act of trespass committed by him also in respect of properties mentioned in Schedule 'B' ......... (to) this plaint, and also for the fact that he is the husband of (the) defendant No. 1 and whatever has been done by (the) defendant No. 1 has been done in conspiracy with (the) defendant No. 2 in respect of the disputed premises." The plaintiff's prayers, inter alia, are (a) decree for recovery of Khas possession in respect of property described in Schedule 'A' by evicting the defendant No. 1 therefrom: (b) decree for damages in respect of Schedule 'A' properties from 1-4-1962 till Khas possession is obtained; (c) declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of property described in Schedule 'B' after evicting the defendants therefrom and (d) a preliminary decree for mesne profits in respect of Schedule 'B' properties.

(3.) The first contention of the petitioner before us is that the Subordinate Judge's Court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit for recovery of possession of 'A' Schedule properties. Such a Suit, according to counsel for the petitioner, should have been instituted in the Munsiff's Court.