KALI PRASAD BASU Vs. SUSANTA KUMAR PRATIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and it is directed against an Order dated May 2, 1981 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 555 of 1978, allowing the defendant No. 1's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on payment of cost.

(2.) The plaintiffs, Kali Prasad Basu and Debabrata Basu filed a suit for eviction of defendant No. 1 Susanta Kumar Pratihar on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. It is alleged that the suit premises originally belonged to Manorama Basu, mother of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants Nos. 2 to 5. The defendant No. 1 was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff's mother, Manorama, on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- payable according to English Calendar month. After the death of Manorama the suit property devolved upon her heirs being the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants 2 to 5. They are thus the owners of the premises. The plaintiffs with due information to the defendants began to collect rent from the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 defaulted in payment of rent from April, 1978. The suit premises are also reasonably required by the plaintiffs for their, own use and occupation. The suit was instituted on Dec. 8, 1978. The summons was served upon the defendant No. 1 through registered post on Dec. 6, 1979. On Dec. 20, 1979 the defendant No. 1 appeared and submitted that though he had received summons, he received an incomplete copy of plaint and he prayed for service copy of plaint and for time to file written statement. On March 10, 1980 the defendant No. 1 filed an application under Sections 17 (2) and 17 (2-A) (b) of the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act. On the said date the defendant No. 1 filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Civil P. C. The plaintiffs opposed the applications. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed by the impugned order,

(3.) Being aggrieved the petitioners have challenged the said order in the present Rule.