BIBHUTI BHUSAN BISWAS Vs. PUSPALATA SIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff has become a tenant holding directly under defendants 1 and 2 in respect of 2 rooms and a bathroom on the 1st floor and a Kitchen on the 2nd floor in premises No. 18 Gour Mohan Mukherjee Street, Calcutta, at a rent of Rs. 21/- per month inclusive of the charges for electricity, for an injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 and their servants and agents from executing the decree or order for possession dated 10-1-1950 passed in Small Cause Court, Suit No. 1117 of 1949 and other reliefs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 and 2 are the landlords of premises No. 18 Gour Mohan Mukherjee Street, Calcutta. Defendant 3 was the tenant under defendant 1 of the said entire premises No. 18, Clour Mohan Mukherjee Street, at a rent of Rs. 40/- per month. On 10-1-1943 defendant 3 lawfully sublet 2 rooms and a bathroom on the 1st floor and a kitchen on the 2nd floor, being a portion of the said premises at a rent of Rs. 19/- per month. The rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 21/- per month inclusive of charges for electricity and the plaintiff had been and was paying the Gafd rent, regularly upto 15-8-1950, when defendant 3 vacated the said premises and left for an unknown destination. Since then the plaintiff could not pay or deposit renta inasmuch as the whereabouts of defendant 3 were not known ana defendants 1 and 2 refused to accept rents from the plaintiff. Prior to this defendants 1 and 2 instituted proceedings for ejectment being Suit No. 1117 of 1949 against defendant 3, inter alia, on the ground that defendant 3 sublet a major portion of the said premises without the previous consent or authority of defendants 1 and 2, and had obtained a decree or order for possession against defendant 3 on 10-1-1950. The said order or decree for possession directed defendant 3 to vacate the premises by 3-7-1950. Subsquently the date for making over possession was extended till 15-8-1950 and finally upon the application of the plaintiff such date for delivery of possession was extended till 19-1-1951. It is alleged that upon the passing of the said decrea against defendant 3 the plaintiff became a tenant holding directly under defendants 1 and 9 under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, 1948. It may be noted, however, that in the plaint the date of the decree Is wrongly given as 3-7-1950 and the provision under which the plaintiff claims to be the direct tenant of defendants 1 and 2 is wrongly stated to be Section 13 Sub-section (II) of the Rent Control Act, 1950.

(3.) Defendant 1 filed her written statement on 5-2-1951 and defendant 2 has filed a voluntary written statement on 4-7-1951.