LAWS(CAL)-1976-2-10

SUDHIR KUMAR PAUL Vs. INDU PROVA GHOSE

Decided On February 16, 1976
SUDHIR KUMAR PAUL Appellant
V/S
INDU PROVA GHOSE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the tenant defendant No. 1 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the decision of Gupta, J. affirming the decision of the Courts below, whereby the plaintiff respondent's suit for eviction of the defendant appellant from a portion of the disputed premises was decreed.

(2.) The suit was initially instituted against the present appellant and four others for eviction from the suit premises on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The trial Court decreed the suit against the present appellant holding him to be the tenant in respect of the suit premises and dismissed the suit against the other defendants on the ground that they were unnecessary parties. Against the said decision, the defendant went up in appeal to the first appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, 8th Court, Alipore by his judgment and decree dated September 26, 1958. Both Courts found the appellant to be a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent for period from February to November, 1954. The appellant thereupon filed a second appeal to this Court and the only point canvassed in the said appeal was the validity of the notice to quit served upon the defendant appellant. The correctness or otherwise of the finding of the Courts below with regard to the default was not in dispute in the second appeal.

(3.) It appears from the record that the notice, on the basis of which the defendant appellant was asked to quit and vacate the premises in suit was issued on May 10, 1955. The said notice has been marked Ext. 3 in this suit. It further appears from the facts of the case that on February 22, 1955 Sm. Indu Prova Ghose, predecessor of the present respondents caused another notice to quit to be issued upon the appellant requiring him to quit and vacate the disputed premises with the expiry of the month of March, 1955 and both the notices were duly served on the appellant. The earlier notice was marked as Ext C in the suit before the trial Court.