CHANDRADIP THAKUR Vs. DULAL LAI SEAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th August,. 1978, passed in Ejectment suit No. 132 of 1974 by Shri K. N. Mukherjee, learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta and whereby, the suit for eviction of the de defendant appel1ants, was decreed and it was directed that, the plaintiff respondents, would be entitled to get a decree for khas possession after evicting the defendant appe11ants from the premises in suit, which comprised of a portion of the first floor of premises No. 84, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta (here in after referred to as the said tenancy ).

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the defendant/appellants were joint monthly tenants under the plaintiff Respondents in respect of the said tenancy at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- payable according to english calendar month. It was claimed by the plaintiff Respondents that the tenancy of the defendant appellants was duly determined by service of a notice to quit and they having failed to comply with the terms of the said notice (Ext. 1), the Ejectment Suit, was filed on 7th February 1974 and it was alleged that, the defendant appellants failed and neglected to pay rent since 1973 and as such, they were not entitled to any protection against eviction under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 here in after referred to as the said act ). As such and on those allegations, the plaintiff/respondents prayed for the decree as made.

(3.) THE defendant/appellants In their written statement denied the legality, validity and sufficiency of the ejectment notice (Ext. 1), apart from asserting that the plaintiff/respondents, with malafide intention, refused to accept the rent from them. The propriety of the schedule of the said tenancy as disclosed in the plaint, was also denied. The defendant/appellants further claimed protection from eviction under the provisions of the said Act and claimed that the suit was filed, not only on a wrong premises and facts. but the same was intended, as mentioned hereinbefore, to harass them. They further claimed to be in due and bona fide occupation of the said tenancy. Admittedly, for determination of arrears of rent, if any, the defendant appellants filed a separate petition under section 17 (2) (A) (b)of the said Act and prayed far payment of arrears, by instalments.