PANNALAL SHAW Vs. GITA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal from Original Decree is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th July 1982, passed in Ejectment Suit. No. 992 of 1 973 by Shri A. N. Basu, learned Judge, 10th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, whereby the suit for ejectment, as instituted by the plaintiff/ respondent on 13th August 1973, for recovery of the premises in suit viz. 65/1a, College Street, P. S. Amherst Street, Calcutta- 12 and for recovery of possession of the same, on the ground of default and subletting, was decreed on contest with costs and it was directed that the defendant/appellant should vacate the said premises within 30 days from the date of the determination" and deliver vacant possession therof to the plaintiff/respondent and in default, the plaintiff/respondent would be at liberty to recover khas possession of the premises in suit, by executing the decree. It should also be noted that by the judgment and decree leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, as prayed for, was given to the plaintiff / respondent, for recovery of arrears of rent and means profit by a separate suit.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the plaintiff respondent was the owner of the premises in suit and the defendant appellant was the tenant under her for the premises in question, on a rental of Rs. 115/-per month, payable according to English calendar month. It was alleged that the defendant appellant was a habitual defaulter and he had failed and neglected to pay rent since January 1973. Apart from alleging that the said defendant appellant, without the permission and consent of the plaintiff respondent even after coming into force of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, transferred, assigned or sublet the premises in suit to several persons and that, being the position, the defendant / appellant, according to plaintiff respondent, had rendered himself disentitled to the benefit of protection against the eviction under that Act.

(3.) IT was also stated in the plaint that by a combined notice dated 9th April 1973, the defendant/appellant's tenancy in respect of the premises in suit, was terminated on the expiry of the 1st day of May 1 973 and that notice which was sent by registered post, was duly received by the defendant/appellant. But, inspite of such receipt, he has failed, and neglected to comply with the requisitions as made therein.