SUNIL SRIVASTAVA Vs. PRANAB KUMAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal, at the instance of the defendant tenant is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 31, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 287 of 2001 thereby affirming the judgment and decree for eviction dated May 29, 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Additional Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 56 of 1997 filed by the father of the respondent landlord.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal lay in a narrow compass and they may be briefly set out herein below. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their array in the trial Court. In September, 1989 the original plaintiff filed the eviction suit, being Title Suit No. 540 of 1989, before the learned first Court of the Munsif at Alipore, claiming a decree for eviction against the defendant from the suit property, comprising two rooms, kitchen, bath and privy situate in a portion of the ground floor of Premises No. 4B, Jagannath Ghosh Road, Kasba in the city of Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). Subsequently, the said suit was transferred to the Court of the learned 3rd Additional Judge, Alipore and the same was renumbered as Title Suit No. 56 of 1993. The tenancy of the defendant in respect of the suit property was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, (in short "the Act of 1956"). One of the grounds urged by the original plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit property was under Section 13(1)(k) of the Act of 1956. It was the case of the original plaintiff in his plaint that on March 01, 1986 the defendant was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit property, at a monthly rental of Rs. 400/ - exclusive of electric charges, and subsequent to the creation the said tenancy, being already in occupation of the suit property, the defendant proposed to vacate the suit property by March, 1989 which was accepted by him. Accordingly, an agreement in writing was duly executed between the defendant and himself on March 04, 1986 whereby the defendant agreed to vacate of the suit property by March, 1989, but in spite of expiry of the said period the defendant failed and neglected to vacate the suit property in spite of his repeated demands. The other ground of eviction urged by the original plaintiff in the eviction suit was that from October, 1988, the defendant defaulted in payment of rent.

(3.) The defendant contested the said eviction suit. In the written statement, it was the case of the defendant that he was put in possession of the suit property on March 01, 1986 and the said agreement dated March 04, 1986 only recorded the terms of his tenancy in respect of the suit property with effect from March 01, 1986. The defendant denied that he had at all proposed or agreed to vacate the suit premises by March, 1989. He further alleged that since he was not conversant with the bengali language in which the said agreement dated March 4, 1989 was written, the original landlord read over and explained the terms of tenancy mentioned in the said agreement dated March 04, 1986 to him and he bona fide signed the said agreement. In the written statement the defendant also denied to be a defaulter in payment of rent.