AMIYA MUKHERJEE Vs. PANCHKARI NANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant, in T. S. No. 56 of 1978/150/75 before the Court of Munsif, 1st Additional Court, Howrah had challenged the Judgment and Decree of affirmance passed by the Additional District Judge, Howrah 2nd Court in T.A. 316 of 1985. The facts leading to this appeal are thus :-

(2.) That the plaintiffs have filed the suit for ejectment and for arrear rents against the defendant. It is stated that the defendant was a habitual defaulter since June 1974. The registered notice was sent through the advocate of the plaintiffs to the defendant claiming arrears of rent and ejectment. The Acknowledge Due Cards, after service, came back to the learned Advocate of the plaintiffs. It is further claimed by the plaintiffs that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated after notice. Defendant in his written statement has however, disputed that he was a defaulter much less since June 1974. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff no. 1 filed a amendment petition claiming that after his retirement from service he decided to open a watch repairing shop in the suit premises and to carry on business. Therefore the plaintiffs wanted the premises for reasonable requirement.

(3.) The learned Trial Court held in his Judgment that there was proper notice issued by the plaintiff demanding to quit the defendant from the suit premises and accordingly Exhibits 9, 10(a), 10(b) & 10(c) were received by the defendant on 7th March, 1975. Though such notice was refuted by the defendant but both the courts have concurrently held that there was proper notice. In the aforesaid situation affirming the finding of the learned courts below, I also hold that the appellant had received notices from the plaintiffs through their advocate to quit the suit premises prior to the suit.