LAWS(CAL)-2013-6-41

KESHAV PRASAD GUPTA Vs. SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWALA

Decided On June 27, 2013
KESHAV PRASAD GUPTA Appellant
V/S
Shyam Sundar Agarwala Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant against the judgement of affirmation. The respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction alleging that the predecessor-in-interest Jivan Lal Agarwala, since deceased, demised the suit premises with the defendant appellant for a period of 20 years with effect from 1st August, 1959 by executing a deed of lease dated 15th December, 1959. It is further case that on the death of the original lessor Jivan Lal Agarwala the appellant plaintiffs stepped into his shoes and received rent from the tenant till August, 1978. It is further case that the defendant failed to pay rent from September, 1978 to July, 1979 and that the deed of lease expired by efflux of time. The plaintiffs sent a notice dated 24th May, 1979 to the defendant through their lawyers under registered cover asking the defendant to hand over the suit property on the expiry of the period of lease. In spite of said notice, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. Hence was the suit.

(2.) The defendant respondent filed a written statement denying material allegations of the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant that after execution of the deed of lease dated 15th December, 1955 one M/s. Jeevan Prasad, a registered partnership firm, started to grant rent receipts in favour of the defendant admitting the defendant as a tenant under said firm. It is further case that thereafter there was negotiation in between plaintiff No.2 and 3 in one hand and the defendant on the other and that a new tenancy from month to month at a rental of Rs.350/- per month was created.

(3.) Learned trial court framed several issues. After contested hearing learned trial court opined that the lease deed was acted upon and that the defendant was not a monthly tenant under the rent law and that the lease was terminated on efflux of time and that in spite of notice the defendant tenant did not vacate the suit premises and accordingly the plaintiff landlord was entitled to get a decree of eviction together with arrear of rent with interest thereupon @ 6% p. a. and also for mesne profits as per law.