BAL KISSEN SHAW Vs. KANUPADA BHOWMICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs-landlords filed ejectment suit No. 794 of 1972 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta for eviction of the tenant-defendant from one shop room in the premises No. 38/2, Shibnarayan Das Lane, P.S. Amherst Street, Calcutta on the ground of default in payment of rent from Nov., 1968 to May, 1972 and for reasonable requirement for their own use and occupation as plaintiff No. 1, who is a Chartered Accountant cum income-tax practitioner, requires it for his chamber and library. It has been stated in the plaint that the notice of ejectment was duly sent to the defendant terminating his monthly tenancy with effect from the date of expiry of the month of April 1972. This notice was sent under registered cover with acknowledgment due. The notice was duly received by the defendant. After the filing of the plaint, an application under O.6, R.17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint was filed and it was prayed in that application that the plaintiffs may be permitted to amend the plaint by inserting para 4A in the plaint which is as follows :-

(2.) This application was allowed and the plaint was permitted to be amended accordingly. An additional written statement was also permitted to be filed by the defendant. In the written statement filed by the defendant it was specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs did not require the suit room for their own use and occupation and it has been further stated that the defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent and it has also been stated that the notice of ejectment was not legally valid and was not sufficient to terminate the tenancy of the defendant.

(3.) Five issues were framed. They are as follows :- 1. Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? 2. Is the defendant a defaulter since Nov., 1968? 3. Whether the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation? 4. Whether the ejectment notice served on the defendant is valid, legal and sufficient? 5. To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled?