ZUBEDA KHATOON Vs. MD. SHAMIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been directed by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dtd. 8/2/2006 passed by the learned 6th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in T.A. no. 82 of 2005 affirming the judgment dtd. 6/7/2005 passed by the learned 3rd Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 557 of 2001.

(2.) Brief background of the present appeal is that the respondents/plaintiffs filed aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant/appellant from the suit premises, occupied by the defendant as a tenant under the plaintiffs at a rental of Rs.30.00 per month, payable according to English Calendar month. The plaintiffs in the plaint alleged that the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent in respect of the suit premises since the month of August, 1981 and as such the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the suit premises by serving notice under sec. 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act of 1956) asking him to vacate the suit premises with the expiry of the month of June 1986. As the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises inspite of the termination of tenancy, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for eviction and for recovery of khas possession.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement contending interalia that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants and as such the question of payment of rent to the plaintiff does not arise. The defendant also challenged the legality, validity and sufficiency of the ejectment notice allegedly served upon her and accordingly the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Defendant also filed application under sec. 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, denying landlord tenant relationship. The Trial Court by order no. 145 dtd. 21/4/1995, came to a finding that there exists landlord tenant relationship between the parties and the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent and the total amount of rent due is Rs.7317.00 and the defendant was directed to pay the said arrear amount of rent by seven monthly instalments. It is alleged that the defendant thereafter did not comply the direction made in aforesaid order no. 145 and as such the Trial Court by a subsequent order dtd. 17/3/2005, on the basis of plaintiff's application filed under sec. 17(3) of the Act of 1956, was pleased to struck off the defence of the defendant against delivery of possession. Defendant did not challenge the said order passed under sec. 17(3) by the court below.