SUBHASH SAHA ROY Vs. SITAPATI DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/defendant Subhas Saha Roy has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah dated July 19, 1997 in Title Appeal No. 37 of 1996, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.166 of 1982. The case as has been made out by the plaintiff in the plaint is inter alia as follows :- the plaintiffs father was the owner of the suit property and on 03.12.1981 the father of the plaintiff, Gobinda Lal Dutta executed one deed of gift in respect of this suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff after accepting the deed of gift became the owner of the suit premises and the defendant was a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 175/- as per English Calendar month under the plaintiff's father. The defendant is a habitual defaulter and has defaulted in payment of rent from the month of December 1980. Previously the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and as a result of which one T.S. No. 335 of 72 came up against the defendant where the defendant got relief under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(2.) The defendant is guilty of violation of the provisions of Clauses m,o,p of the Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendant constructed a bath room on the southern portion of the verandah of the first floor without making arrangement for passing filthy water of the bath room and the matter is causing damage to the building of the suit premises. The father of the plaintiff issued a notice to quit dated 07.11.1980-1981 and the defendant received the notice but did not quit the suit premises and as a result of which the instant suit arose.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement and denying the allegations of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that he tendered rent for the month of August, 1978 by money order to the father of the plaintiff who refused to accept the rent and as such the defendant deposited the rent to the Rent Controller, Calcutta. The defendant is not a defaulter, the defendant did not construct any bath room as, alleged. There was a urinal in southern side of verandah for a long time and the same was very old, the defendant require the same. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff/ landlord did not supply drinking water to the defendant. The defendant also denied the service of notice to quit upon him.