PIJUSH KANTI GUHA Vs. KINNORI MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application for a Rule under Section 115 of the Civil P. C, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 455 of 1982, pending before the learned Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, has sought to impeach Order No. 77, dated 17th Feb., 1984, whereby his application under Order 19, Rule 1 of the Civil P. C. has been dismissed on contest with costs.

(2.) The petitioner is stated to be carrying on wholesale business in medicines and other pharmaceutical products under the name and style "PADCOM". He is also stated to be the sole proprietor of the said business, which is being carried on in a room on the first floor of the premises No. 4, Wood Street, Calcutta-16 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). It was his case, that sometime in the month of June 1972, Shri Haripada Mullick, opposite party No. 2, describing himself as the agent of Smt. Kinnori Mullick, opposite party No. 1, inducted him as a tenant in respect of the said premises on rental of Rs. 350/- per month and such rent is payable according to English calendar month. It has also been slated by the petitioner that at the time of his induction as tenant, he paid Rs. 700/- out of which Rs. 350/-was on account of rent for the month of June 1972 and the balance Rs. 350/- was kept as security deposit with the opposite party as mentioned above and he, to whom such payment was made, did not grant any receipt on the plea of pendency of a probate matter and so also the pendency of other matters like estate duty, income-tax and Corporation tax of the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner has further stated that the opposite party No. 2, assured him that there would be no difficulty so far he is concerned in the matter of peaceful and exclusive enjoyment of the said premises. the measurement whereof would be about 400 square ft. The petitioner has of course alleged that his possession and enjoyment of the said premises, was initially peaceful and without any trouble and he, in fact, got the said premises thoroughly renovated, apart from having various other costly fixtures and fittings, fitted at his cost.

(3.) It has now been stated that in the month of June 1981, the opposite party No. 2, as mentioned above, refused to accept the monthly rent and asked the petitioner to vacate the said premises as the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 were negotiating to sell the entice premises to J. D. Damani, opposite party No. 3, for the purpose of constructing a multi-storied building. On such, the petitioner has stated to have remitted rent to the opposite party No. 1, firstly by money order and thereafter, on refusal to accept the same by the opposite party No. 1, he has deposited such rent with the Rent Controller, Calcutta and thereafter, be is regularly depositing the monthly rent with the said Controller.