TIRTHAPATI SEN Vs. PARESH NATH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued on December, 14, 1964, calling upon the Plaintiff opposite party to show cause why the order dated December 5, 1964, under Sec. 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, by Mr. S.K. Chakravartty, Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 1012 of 1964, should not be set aside.

(2.) The opposite parties instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No. 1012 of 1964 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, against the Petitioner for ejectment from a portion of municipal premises No. 157/2A, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, in the town of Calcutta. They instituted the suit as successors to the estate of late Pravabati Dasi. According to the opposite parties, premises No. 157/2A, to which the disputed tenancy appertains, forms part of the estate of the deceased and the Petitioner was a tenant under them in respect of a portion of the said premises in the 2nd floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 55. Their further case is that the said tenancy was terminated by a notice to quit asking the Petitioner to vacate by the end of April 1964 and that the Petitioner is not entitled to any protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as he has not paid rent since November, 1959.

(3.) The summons appears to have been served upon the Petitioner personally under registered cover with acknowledgment due on August 6, 1964. The Petitioner appeared on August 7, 1964 and filed hit written statement on September 23, 1964. The Petitioner contended in the written statement that he was never a tenant under the Plaintiff opposite parties or under the estate which they represent, nor was he a tenant under the testatrix. His contention was that he was a co -sharer in the disputed premises and had been residing there as such and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the Plaintiff opposite parties. He claimed to be a co -sharer to the extent of 1/4th share and asserted that he was in occupation not only of the small portion in respect of which ejectment suit had been instituted but of a much bigger portion of the said premises No. 157/2A, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road. He denied the story of tenancy on a monthly rent and asserted that no question of default in paying rent could arise.