RATISH CHANDRA GUHA Vs. NAGENDRA NATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent Nagendra Nath Das brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen on the allegation that the first Defendant Santi Ranjan Saha took lease of two rooms in 10H Paramhangsa Deb Road, Chetla, of which he is the owner, as a monthly tenant but defaulted in payment of rent from March 1949 and that from the beginning of 1948 this first Defendant sublet the entire premises to the second and third Defendants. It was averred that the Defendant Santi Ranjan had ceased to be a tenant by operation of Section 12(3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, hereafter referred to as the Act, or the 1948 Act and so he had become a trespasser and that Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had also no right to occupy the rooms. Though the Plaintiff's case is that the tenancy comprised only two rooms, he has treated, for the purpose of this case, another room, which, according to him, the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had been occupying forcibly, as part of the tenancy. He asked for a decree for ejectment against all the Defendants and also for a decree for arrears of rent against Defendant No. 1. Santi Ranjan Saha, Defendant No. 1, did not contest the suit. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 contended that they were not sub-tenants under Defendant No. 1; that, in fact, Defendant No. 1 was never a tenant of the Plaintiff for the premises and that it was Defendant No. 2 who took settlement of all the three rooms from the Plaintiff but used to pay the rents into the hands of Defendant No. 1 as the Plaintiff's agent in accordance with the Plaintiff's instructions. It was further pleaded that even if it was held that Defendant No. 1 is a tenant under the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 sub-tenants under him, they became direct tenants under the Plaintiff under Section 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) The trial Court disbelieved the defence case and held that Defendant No. 1 was a tenant under the Plaintiff for two rooms and Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were sub-tenants of Defendant No. 1 for these rooms but wrongfully occupied a third room also. He held further that Defendant No. 1's tenancy under the Plaintiff was determined by non-payment of rent for three consecutive months. The trial Court decreed the suit and ordered that the Plaintiff would get khas possession of the premises by evicting all the Defendants and gave the Plaintiff also a decree for arrears of rent claimed and damages at the monthly rate of rent for the period from June 1, 1949, till the date of the Court's order on payment of additional Court fees, otherwise the damages would be decreed to the extent tentatively valued in the suit. There was also an order that the Plaintiff would get a further decree of damages for the period subsequent to the date till khas possession on filing application and Court fees.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore, agreed with the findings, but held as regards the claim for arrears of rent that Defendant No. 1 alone was liable. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court with this modification that the Plaintiff would get a decree for Rs. 180 on account of arrears of rent as against Defendant No. 1 and the decree for this amount as against Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 would be set aside.