DHANESH CHANDRA BHATTACHARYA Vs. PANNA LAL SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal, at the instance of the defendant in an eviction suit, is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 11, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Nadia in Title Appeal No. 147 of 2006, upholding and confirming the judgment and decree for eviction dated August 17, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 1st Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in T.S. No. 124 of 1998.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are referred to by their array in the suit before the trial Court. The plaintiffs, as the sebaits of Sree Sree Raghunath Jew, Sree Sree Radhakanta/Radha Gobinda Jew, Sree Sree Jagganath Jew filed the eviction suit, before the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 1st Court, Krishnagar at Nadia, claiming a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit property, comprising one residential house over Holding No. Mahitosh Biswas Street, under Ward No. 22 of Krishnagar Municipality, P.S. Kotwali, District- Nadia (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") by evicting the defendant therefrom and a decree for mesne profits. In the plaint it was the case of the plaintiffs that they had inducted the defendant as a tenant in respect of the suit property at, a rental of Rs. 150/- per English Calendar month and the latter defaulted in payment of rent and he also damaged the suit property. By an agreement for sale dated December 11, 1994 between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the latter agreed to purchase the suit property but subsequently he failed to perform the said agreement for sale and did not pay the rent of the suit property. By a notice dated March 6, 1998 issued under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"), the plaintiffs called upon the defendant to vacate the suit property within April 30, 1998, but in spite of the receipt of the said notice the latter failed and neglected to vacate the suit property and, as such, the plaintiffs filed the eviction suit seeking the defendant's eviction from the suit property. The defendant contested the eviction suit. He filed written statement, as well as the additional written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint. The defendant alleged that on March 15, 1975 when the plaintiffs requested him to hand over vacant possession of the suit property, he drove them out of the suit property in presence of many people namely, Sambhu Muhuri, Asit Ghosh, Buro Pramanik, Bhabani Pal Chowdhury and others and, as such, he claimed his title to the suit property against the plaintiffs through adverse possession. In support of the claim of his title through adverse possession, he alleged to have paid the municipal rates and taxes in respect of the suit property. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:

(3.) Whether the suit is barred under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act?