FONA RUBBER PVT LTD Vs. EASTERN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:

(2.) The plaintiff has also pleaded in the plaint, by way of amendment, that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for its own use and occupation and the plaintiff has mutated its name with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and on mutation the said Corporation has given the premises number as 77B, Christopher Road, wherein the defendant s tenancy is continuing. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not have any tenancy at 77A, Christopher Road and the plaintiff has alleged that Ravi and Shashi, after completing their education, became partners of the plaintiff firm and, accordingly, the partnership has been reconstituted and there are as many as six partners in the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff has decided to expand the present business in manufacturing goods and new machineries are lying idle and uninstalled since there is no sufficient space for installation in the present existing shed. The plaintiff has also alleged that the plaintiff intends to start three plants and one office room with Latrine and toilet and as such the suit premises is reasonably required by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. The plaintiff has also pleaded that a notice to quit dated 10th June, 1996 was served upon the defendant but the defendant has neither replied to the said notice nor vacated the suit premises and hence the said suit. The defendant contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The defendant has disputed the alleged ownership of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was put to strict proof thereof. The defendant has alleged that the defendant prior to the functioning of its works made necessary construction in accordance with the terms of agreement.

(3.) The defendant has also alleged that neither the plaintiff nor Harry Morris ever intimated the defendant to attorn the tenancy to the plaintiff. The defendant has pleaded in the additional written statement that the defendant was inducted by erstwhile owner/landlord at premises No.77A, Christopher Road. The defendant had denied the allegation that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by purchase. The defendant has alleged that there are several spaces still vacant at 77, Christopher Road, Calcutta and there is no dearth of space. The defendant has pleaded that he has been inducted by the erstwhile owner and continuing business therein on payment of the monthly rent. According to the defendant, during the continuance of the suit the plaintiff has rented out of a portion of 77, Christopher Road which is alleged to be 77B, Christopher Road to one M/s. Safrroy and the question of expansion is also a myth.