PATHIDHAR SAW MILL Vs. BIMAL KRISHNA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was obtained by the Thika tenant against an appellate order dated October, 5, 1972 passed by the additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore affirming the order of the Munsif, 4th court Sealdah acting as the Thika Controller under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 allowing an application under Section 5 of the said Act. The relevant facts are that premises no. 22/4 also known as 22/6, Galif street belonged to the opposite parties and the premises was let out by their father to one Nagendra Nath Ghose as a thika tenant in respect of 11 cloth of land comprising the premises at a rental of Rs. 200/- payable according to bengali calendar month. The land was taken by Nagendra for running a business of Surki Mill at the premises. Nagendra sold his interest to the petitioner in this rule by a registered deed dated November 30, 1959, who thereby acquired interest of nagendra in the said premises and there is no dispute that the petitioner accordingly became the thika tenant of the said premises under the same terms and conditions.

(2.) ON June 8. 1960 the opposite parties who became the landlords after their father filed an application under section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy act, 1949 for recovery of possession of the said tenanted premises on eviction of the petitioner on the ground of their own use and occupation for the purposes of their business. It was said that the tenancy of the petitioner was duly terminated by a valid notice dated January 27, 1960 corresponding to magh 13, 1366 B. S. calling upon the petitioner to quit and vacate and deliver khas possession of the premises on the expiry of the last day of Baisak 1366 B. S. This notice was duly received by the petitioner but as there was no delivery of possession of the premises as required, the application aforesaid was filed for an order of ejectment of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner filed a written objection denying the allegations about the requirement of the premises made by the opposite parties and also contended that the notice was not legal, valid or sufficient. It was further stated that the petitioner had made certain permanent structures in the premises for the residence of his staff and accordingly no order of ejectment could be passed against him at least in respect of such portion of land.