ACHALAPADA DE AND OTHERS Vs. RATHINDRA NATH HAZRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Suit Nos. 296 and 297 of 1973 by the 12th Bench City Civil Court, Calcutta decreeing Ejectment Suit No. 296 of 1973 and dismissing Ejectment Suit No. 297 of 1973. The plaintiffs were directed to get a decree for khas possession after evicting the defendant therefrom and the defendant was allowing three months time to vacate the suit premises failing which the plaintiff would be at liberty to put the decree into execution.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are as follows :

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement questioning the validity and legality and sufficiency of the alleged notice to quit. Defendant further stated that no notice was served or tendered to the defendant on 14.10.72 through Peon and as such the question of affixing the said notice in his presence and in the presence of the two gentlemen in the locality did not arise at all. The defendant also denied that a notice to quit was served on him in the manner or manners as alleged in the plaint. The report of the Peon is a fabricated document created by the plaintiff for the purpose of the case. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs reasonably required the suit premises for their own use and occupation. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff Nos. 3 to 1C do not require the suit premises for their own use and occupation as they resided in their native village in Vastara, District Hooghly very near to Calcutta and it was very convenient for them to live there for purpose of looking after their joint properties and business. It has also been stated therein that plaintiff No. 4 is a Government employee whose office is very near to his village and plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6 have their lucrative Sweetmeat business in their said village and the plaintiff Nos. 7 and 10 are studying in the Higher Secondary School of their native village. The plaintiff Nos. 8 and 9 are to stay in their native village and to look after their family and also their joint business. An additional written statement was also filed on 26.6.80 by the defendant in ejectment. Suit No. 296 of 1973 wherein it has been stated that the plaintiffs previously filed an ejectment suit on same grounds of reasonable requirement being Ejectment Suit No. 216 of 1957 before the 5th Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta and the said suit was decreed and the plaintiff obtained possession of the suit premises but the plaintiffs relet the suit premises to the different tenants within a few months. The plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of section 18 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and so this suit is liable to be dismissed. It has also been stated that the plaintiff No. 4 constructed a new building in his village Vastara after filing the suit and he resides there separately and permanently. The plaintiff No. 9 is married and he has been residing with her husband in village Dasgora, District Hooghly. The mother-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 was living with her son A.P. Dutta who has a lucrative sweetmeat shop and as such the plaintiffs do not require the suit premises for their own use and occupation.