ASRUKANA PAL Vs. SABITA GHOSH SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point raised in the instant appeal is that the appellant being a non-agricultural tenant governed by the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1959 cannot be evicted upon introduction of Sec. 3A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as the land covered under the nonagricultural tenancy vested with the State of West Bengal and the nonagricultural tenant became a Raiyat (Right of Ownership) directly under the State. It is important to record that the aforesaid plea was not taken initially at the time when the written statement was filed by the appellant but brought by way of an amendment subsequently.

(2.) For the purpose of record the salient facts involved in the instant case are required to be succinctly narrated in order to understand the initial issues involved therein which is attempted to be diverted from taking the stand as narrated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Plaintiff-respondent filed this suit for eviction of a monthly tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 on the ground of default in payment of rent, reasonable requirement and sub-letting. The specific case pleaded in the plaint is that the predecessor in interest of the present appellant i.e., Madhusudan Pal was inducted as a tenant in respect of B Schedule Property being a Coal Depot at a monthly rental of Rs.20.00 payable according to the English Calendar. It is further alleged that the said tenant defaulted in payment of rent since the month of April, 1998. The plaint further proceeds that the original tenant illegally and wrongfully sub-let the premises to one Tapan Pal, Rabin Pal & Swapan Pal and parted with the exclusive possession of the B Schedule Property without obtaining a prior written consent from the plaintiff-respondent. It is further averred that the plaintiff-respondent reasonably requires the B Schedule Property for construction of a drawing room, one study cum guest room and one Thakur ghar as well as a garage as the accommodation available to them is not reasonable suitable for such purposes. It is further alleged that the "B' Schedule Property is in the front portion and, therefore, it would be more suitable for such purposes and since the plaintiff-respondent is not in possession of the reasonable suitable accommodation available at their disposal, a notice to quit was issued upon original tenant who despite having received the same did not quit and vacate the "B' Schedule Premises unto and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

(3.) Admittedly, the original tenant died and the suit for eviction was filed against the present appellants being the heirs and successors having succeeded to the estate of the deceased. In the written statement the appellant not only disputed the right, title and interest of the plaintiffrespondent but also denied all the grounds to have any semblance of truth in support of the alleged eviction sought against them. Interestingly, the appellant admitted the plaintiff-respondent as landlord having categorically stated in the written statement that they tendered the rent to them but alleged that even after receiving the same did not issue any rent receipt in their favour. It is further stated that after having sensed that rent receipt has not been issued, the rent was tendered through money order and upon refusal, the appellant started depositing the same in the office of the rent controller. Even after receiving the summon they started depositing the rent in the Court in terms of Sec. 7 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and also raised a dispute under Sec. 7 (2) of the said Act.