BABULAL SATANALIKA Vs. SATYA NARAIN AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the reversing judgment and decree passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Asansol in Title Appeal No. 109 of 1966 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) filed the suit for ejectment of the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) from the suit premises alleging inter alia that the defendants 1 to 4 were the monthly tenants under Md. Mohiuddin Ansari and his brothers at a monthly rental of Rs. 28/- payable according to English Calendar Month. While Mohiuddin and his brothers were in possession of the properties sold the same to the plaintiff for valuable consideration under a strength of a registered deed of conveyance dated 23rd March, 1957. The erstwhile landlords informed the defendants 1 to 4 about such sale transaction and asked to treat the plaintiff as their landlord by a notice dated 6th April, 1957. The defendants had allegedly received the notice on 8th April, 1957. The plaintiff also informed the defendants regarding such sale transaction and claiming to be the landlord of the suit premises by the letter dated 29th March, 1957 which had been acknowledged by the latter on 1st April, 1957. The defendants 1 to 4 with a mischievous intention just to avoid the payment of rent began to deposit rents jointly in the names of the plaintiff as well as the defendant No. 5 under section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for which it appears that there was a Misc. Case registered before the Rent Controller, Asansol in Misc. Case 34/57. Since the defendants 1 to 4 began to disclaim the right of the plaintiff their relationship as landlord and tenant from that date onwards was terminated. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant No. 5 has had no right title, interest and possession over the suit premises and therefore if any rent deposited/paid by the defendants 1 to 4 could not constitute valid payment of rent. Since they defaulted in paying rent from March, 1957, they have forfeited all rights to protection against ejectment from the suit premises who are liable to be evicted from the same. The plaintiff has served valid notice determining the tenancy against defendants 1 to 4 stating that they would vacate the premises within one month from February, 1963 which had been properly acknowledged by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on 22nd January, 1963 but the defendants 1 to 4 refused to receive the notice which the plaintiff has subsequently received with such endorsement. Even after expiry of the period and on receipt of the registered notice sent by the plaintiff when the defendants 1 to 4 did not vacate the suit premises the plaintiff was obliged to bring the suit for eviction of the defendants on the ground of reasonable requirement, building and re-building and also for default in payment of rent. The defendants 2 to 4 filed a joint written statement while the proforma defendant No. 5 by a separate written statement denied the plaint allegation. The defence set up by the defendants 2 to 4, in short, shows that the plaintiff's vendor Md. Mohiudin Ansari was not the exclusive owner of the suit property which belonged also to his brothers. The defendant No. 5 being the grand daughter of Mohiuddin' s brother is also a co-sharer of the suit house who is entitled to rent as that of the plaintiff. Therefore the defendants 1 to 4 legitimately deposited the rent before the Rent Controller and for that reason on no count they could be treated as defaulter. Another stand was taken by them that the proforma defendant No. 5 served a notice upon defendants Nos. 2 to 4 demanding the rent in respect of the suit premises and on that account the contesting defendants 2 to 4 had to take steps for depositing the rent before the Rent Controller.

(2.) The learned Munsif on a careful consideration of the evidence on record, came to hold that the plaintiff had properly served ejectment notice on the defendants. Therefore the notice served against them determining the tenancy was valid. It is further observed that Mohiuddin Ansari had validly granted receipt to defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Mohiuddin the son of Hazi Barta who was the real owner of the suit house and he was not the name lender as claimed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The defendant No. 5 has no lawful claim over the suit property. The contesting defendants also did not ever take any steps to tender rent on the plaintiff. Since the defendants had been paying to Mohiuddin Ansari treating him to be their landlord, subsequently they can not be permitted to turn round and set up a joint title in favour of defendant No. 5. There was reasonable necessity for the accommodation of the plaintiff and the learned Trial Court passed judgment and decree in his favour.

(3.) The appellate Court, on the contrary, indicated that the notice was valid. The plaintiffs vendor Mohiuddin Ansari had no exclusive interest over the suit property vis-a-vis the plaintiff. Since he did not possess the exclusive ownership over the suit property the suit for ejectment at his instance is bound in fail. With these observations the appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned Munsif and consequently dismissed the plaintiffs suit.