SURAJIT BANERJEE Vs. BAIDYA NATH PRAMANICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it is directed against judgement dated 31.7.2001 and the decree thereof passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), 4th Court, Alipore, in the District of 24-arganas(S). The learned appellate Court below decreed the suit, reversing the judgement of the trial Court by which such Court dismissed the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed T.S. No. 31/90 alleging, inter alia, that the suit property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff Sanyasi Charan Pramanik who executed and registered a deed of family settlement whereby he created a Trust in respect of the suit property. The said original owner with his wife became the joint trustees. It was provided that after their death, the property would vest absolutely upon the three sons of the trustees as provided in the deed of settlement. Mother of the plaintiff died on 17.8.82 and his father died on 10.8.83. After the death of both the trustees, the plaintiff became the sole and absolute owner of Lot 'A' wherein defendant was a tenant in respect of a portion more fully described in the schedule of the plaint, at a rental of Rs. 60/- per month payable according to English Calendar and on the death of both the trustees, the tenancy of the defendant was duly attorned and such defendant started paying rent to the plaintiff month by month. It was further alleged that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation as the plaintiff with his family was actually residing in a room allotted to his younger brother, as his licensee. The said younger brother was pressing hard to the plaintiff to vacate the room for his own accommodation. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff badly required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had no other suitable accommodation elsewhere. For the aforesaid reason, the plaintiff sent a notice-dated 30.10.89 by registered post with A.D. terminating the tenancy of the defendant on the expiry of the month of December, 1989. Such notice was returned with a postal endorsement "refused" on its cover. In this way, the said notice was served upon the defendant/tenant but in spite of such notice, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and in that background, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit on a written statement denying all material allegations. It was further contended that the plaintiff in order to evict the original tenant/defendant cooked up a false story of requirement including the allegation of living as a licensee under his younger brother.