MURALI DHAR DAS Vs. PROTIVA RANI CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant assailed a judgment of affirmation of a decree of eviction against him in the present second appeal.

(2.) THE respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement. Six issues were framed for trial. The appellant contended that the notice to quit was not received by him. Moreover, the suit property was not reasonably required by the respondent. The second appeal was admitted by an order dated January 16, 2006 and was directed to be heard on the following substantial question of law: - 1. Whether the learned court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in rejecting an application for amendment of written statement filed by the appellant during the pendency of the appeal alleging that during the pendency of such appeal the plaintiff -respondent constructed two further spacious rooms.

(3.) IT was also contended that the Trail Judge erred in not taking assistance of a hand writing expert to arrive at the finding that the notice to quit was received by the appellant when the appellant disputed his signature on the acknowledgement due card. The First Appellate Court did not allude to that aspect at all. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that, the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Judge mechanically and that adequate reasons for affirmation were absent in the impugned judgment. The appellant did not confine his contentions to the substantial question of law framed by the order dated January 16, 2006 only in the course of hearing of the second appeal.