MAYA PARSHI Vs. MONOROMA PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today when the appeal was called out for hearing, none appears on behalf of the respondents. This Court has heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and has considered the materials on record.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:

(3.) Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs filed a Title Appeal No. 5 of 2004 which was placed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranaghat, Nadia and the said Title Appeal came up for hearing when the learned First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 19.9.2006 allowed the said appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court came to the finding that the defendants in the suit were defaulters in payment of rent and they were not entitled to any protection under 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The learned First Appellate Court also decided the question as to whether the suit was bad for defect of parties and came to the conclusion that the suit was not bad for defect of parties as a question in this regard was raised by the defendants in the suit. The learned First Appellate Court found that the notice to quit dated 10.10.1988 is valid and sufficient and it determined the contractual tenancy of the defendants in the suit and the said second notice to quit was served upon the defendants.