SERAJUL ISLAM Vs. BHUBANESWAR MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated June 16, 1972 passed by Hazra, J. against the appellant. By and under the decree Hazra, J. directed the appellant, inter alia, to pay arrears of rent mentioned in paragraph 10 of the plaint, deliver up possession of the premises Nos. 15/2 and 15/3, Armenian Street, Calcutta and also pay mesne profits in respect of the aforesaid two premises from 1st Magh, 1367 B. S. corresponding to January 15, 1961 at the rates of Rs. 42/6/- and Rs. 42/8/- per month respectively until delivery of possession is made over by the appellant to the respondent of the said two premises.

(2.) The appellant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff as per the Bengali calendar in respect of the said two premises, namely, 15/2 and 15/3, Armenian Street, Calcutta, fully described in the Schedule to the plaint at rents of Rs. 42/6/- and Rs. 42/8/-respectively per month. The said two premises as described in the Schedule to the plaint are plots of land containing 2 cottahs 12 chittacks and 1 cottah respectively more or less. The case of the respondent in the plaint was that the appellant failed to pay any rent in respect of the said two several premises since Karlick, 1366 B. S. corresponding to October 39, 1959. The appellant further by two several letters both dated January 30, 1961 claimed title in himself of the said two properties and renounced his character as tenant in respect thereof. By two several letters both dated November 29, 1961 the respondent gave notice to the appellant of his intention to determine the tenancy in the said two premises and called upon the appellant to deliver up possession thereof to him. As the appellant failed and neglected to deliver up possession of the said two properties, the respondent filed the suit claiming, inter alia, possession thereof, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The respondent also claimed a declaration that he was the owner of the said two properties.

(3.) The appellant filed his written statement which appears at page 10 of the paper book. In paragraph 3 of the said written statement the appellant denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the properties in suit. In paragraph 4 of the written statement the appellant stated that if at any time the respondent had title in the said two properties he had lost his right, title and interest in the premises in suit by adverse possession by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant as well as by that of the appellant. In paragraph 5 of the written statement the appellant denied that he was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the premises in suit and stated that he had become the owner of the premises in suit by purchase in 1945 and by possession thereof by mutating his name in the Collectorate of Calcutta and the Corporation of Calcutta. The appellant in paragraph 6 of the written statement filed by him stated that he was not liable to pay any rent to the plaintiff in respect of the premises in suit and denied that he was a tenant under the res-pondent. In the written statement the appellant further stated that by the above-mentioned letters dated January 30, 1961 he had only asserted his right as owner of the said premises. The whole tenor and purport of the written statement was that the appellant was the owner of the premises in suit and that the respondent had no right, title or interest therein.