SAMBHU CHARAN HAZRA Vs. BANDANA LAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court. Howrah affirming those of the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Howrah in T.S. No. 274 of 1976.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent instituted the said suit against the appellant-defendant for his eviction from the suit premises. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was formerly a monthly tenant under Bimal Mallick in respect of one shop room at Premises No. 333, Netaji Subhas Road at a monthly rate of 55/- payable according to English Calendar month. By a registered sale deed dated 8.7.75 the said Bimal Mallick sold a portion of premises No. 333 and 332, Netaji Subhas Road including the tenanted portion to the plaintiff and gave one letter of attornment to the defendant asking him to attorn to the plaintiff as landlord and pay rent to her and the said letter was received by the defendant. But the defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiff and was defaulter from September, 1973 to August, 1976. The defendant also illegally and without knowledge and consent of the landlord sub-divided the said shop room and sublet the same to three persons, namely, Md. Bux, Sri Bankubehari Paul and M/s. S. K. Mukherjee & Bros. The plaintiff determined the tenancy of the defendant by service of a notice of ejectment asking him to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit room to the plaintiff with the expiry of the mouth of August, 1976 but in spite of the service of the notice the defendant did not vacate the suit premises.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement inter alia on the grounds that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties and that the plaintiff had no cause of action for the suit. The defence case was that originally the defendant's father Sarat Chandra Hazra was tenant under Kanta Mohan Mallick. On the death of Sarat Chandra Hazra all his sons including the defendant inherited the tenancy right but the landlord for his convenience used to grant rent receipt in the name of the defendant alone but that did not affect the tenancy right of other brothers of defendant. The alleged default in payment of rent was denied. It was alleged that the subtenants as mentioned in the plaint were inducted with knowledge and consent of the original landlord long before the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 came into operation.