SO NAB ATI DEVI Vs. ACHYUTANAND DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant appellants of these six appeals held six tenancies in respect of the different portions of the ground floor of Premises No. 49a, Nirmal Chandra street, P. S. Muchipara, Calcutta-12. While the tenancy of the defendant appellant of F. A. No. 69 of 1979 (arising out of Ejectment Suit No. 726 of 1975) was for residential purposes, the remaining appellants were carrying on their businesses in their respective rooms let out to them. ,

(2.) ON 8th January, 1971, the previous landlord, Gobinda Dulal Srimani, by a registered conveyance sold the said premises No. 49a, Nirmal Chandra street to the plaintiff respondent no. 1 and 2. After serving upon the defendant tenants notices under section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, on 29th June, 1975 the plaintiff respondents had instituted in the City Civil Court at Calcutta six ejectment suits against the defendant tenants, inter alia, on the allegation that they reasonably required the said premises under section 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for their own use and occupation and also on the ground of default in payment of rent under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act. The plaintiff respondent in Ejectment Suit No. 726 of 1975 (corresponding to F. A. 69 of 1979) claimed that they were also entitled to recover possession on the grounds of subletting and of violation of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of property Act. The defendant tenants contested the said suits by denying the allegations made by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned Judge, 2nd Bench, city Civil Court at Calcutta analogously tried the said six ejectment suits and by his judgment dated 20th December, 1978 passed decrees for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff respondents under clause (ff) of sub-section)!)of section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned Judge of the Court below, however, rejected the case of the plaintiff that Sonabati Devi, the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 726 of 1975 had committed violation of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the transfer of Property Act. The learned Judge of the court below further found that the defendants in all the six suits had complied with the orders passed under sub-section (2a) of section 17 of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act and therefore, mo decree for ejectment on the ground of default could be passed against them. in other words, the learned Judge of the court below had granted them relief under the main part of sub-section (4) of section 117 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.