NIRANJAN MODAK Vs. LAKSHMI NARAYAN GUIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant Niranjan Modak who suffered a decree for ejectment in respect of the suit premises in the original suit filed by the plaintiff Lakshminarayan Guin and others, the respondents before this Court. In the first appeal below also Niranjan Modak was unsuccessful.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners of the suit property, a house and the defendant was a tenant under them in respect of the premises in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 100 payable according to Bengali Calendar month. The defendant did not pay any rent for the suit premises to the plaintiffs in spite of demand. Moreover, the plaintiffs required the premises for reconstruction of a new house on the land for their own use. As the defendant did not vacate the house in spite of service of notice to quit, the suit was filed for recovery of khas possession and also for arrears of rents. The defendant filed a written statement stating that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant as between him and the plaintiffs. The allegation about arrears of rent is false. According to the defendant, one Sishubala is the owner of the house and the defendant is a tenant under her and he paid rents to the said landlady. It has been further stated that the father of the plaintiffs obtained several deeds from Sishubala by making misrepresentation and by practising fraud. The trial court found that the case of the plaintiffs was proved and the defence case was not accepted. The suit was, therefore, decreed. In the first appeal taken by the defendant, it was held that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiffs and the appellate court below also agreed with the triall court to affirm the decree passed against the defendant.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ghosh for the respondents.