ROYAL STATIONERY SUPPLY HOUSE Vs. AZIZUL HAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed in a suit for recovery of possession instituted by the plaintiff on the allegations that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of premises in suit consisting of a shop-room with a godown in the ground floor of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 110/- payable according to English Calendar month. The suit was instituted on the ground that the plaintiffs required the premises in suit for their own occupation for the purpose of starting a business for their own maintenance. The notice of ejectment was given, period of notice expiring on 30th April, 1964. The suit was instituted on 23rd June, 1964. This notice was issued by a pleader on behalf of 5 brothers who claimed to be the owners of the house. One of those brothers Mukhlaru Haque died before the date of expiry of notice and a suit was instituted by the four surviving brothers and the heirs of the deceased Mukhtaru Haque.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit by raising several pleas. One contention was that one of the brothers on whose behalf the notice of ejectment was given having died before the date of the expiry of the notice, the suit instituted on the basis of that notice of ejecment should fail because there was no notice of ejectment given on behalf of the plaintiffs Nos. 5 to 7 who joined as plaintiffs as heirs of deceased Mukhtaru Haque. Another contention raised on behalf of the defendant was that in a letter addressed to them by a pleader on behalf of the plaintiff described the plaintiffs as "Messrs. Azizul Haque and brothers". Relying on that letter which was brought in evidence on admission as Ext. A the defendant contended that the owner of the premises who has inducted defendant as tenant was a partnership firm and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs individually and the defendant. On the merits the defendant contested the plaintiff's claim of requirement of the suit premises for the use and occupation of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The learned Trial Judge held that the defect pleaded by the defendant had no substance. He held that there was no necessity of issuing a fresh notice of ejectment because the heirs of the deceased brother have been joined as plaintiffs as his legal heirs. He also held that the description of the plaintiffs as "Azizul Haque and Brothers" in the letter Ext. A did not connote a firm name, but was only abbreviation of all the brothers' names. On the merits the learned trial Judge held that evidence showed that the plaintiffs are out of employment. They have no business of their own to earn income for maintenance. The plaintiffs therefore wanted to start a business to augment their income in the business locality where the suit premises is situated. That has been held by the learned trial Judge to be correct position in fact and he held that the plaintiffs reasonably required the premises in suit for the purpose of starting business. On those findings the suit has been decreed by a judgment dated 31st January, 1966.