BABLU CHATTERJEE Vs. ASHIT CHAKRABORTY & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's appeal challenging the decree of eviction passed by the learned Trial Judge. The decree for eviction was passed in favour of the transferee landlords. The original tenant died on 30th December, 2001 even before transfer of the suit property made by the erstwhile landlords in favour of the present transferee landlords (plaintiffs/respondents). In view of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the specified legal representatives of the original tenant who were ordinarily residing with such tenant at the time of his/her death and were dependent upon such tenant, are permitted to stay in the tenancy for a period of five years after the death of the original tenant. The said statutory period has long expired. The legal heirs of the original tenant did not vacate the suit premises. As such, in view of the provision contained in Section 2(g) of the said Act, the landlords are entitled to get a decree for eviction against the tenant. However, some intervening facts are required to be considered in the present case.

(2.) We have already mentioned above that the suit property was transferred by the original landlords in favour of the transferee landlords (plaintiffs/respondents). The transferee landlords, after purchasing the suit property, issued a letter of attornment to the defendant/appellant describing him as a tenant. Subsequently the transferee landlords through their learned advocate issued a letter upon the defendant/appellant calling upon him to vacate the suit premises and deliver the vacant possession thereof in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendant did not deliver possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the defendant sent a sum of Rs.130/- by money order towards the rent for the month of February, 2012 to the transferee landlords/plaintiffs. Admittedly the transferee landlords/plaintiffs accepted the said money order, but immediately after coming to know the name of the sender and the purpose of sending the said sum of Rs.130/- to the transferee landlords/plaintiffs, they sent the said sum of Rs.130/- back to the defendant/appellant by money order. The defendant/appellant did not accept the same and claimed that by accepting the said rent from the tenant/defendant for the month of February, 2012, the transferee landlords/plaintiffs have acknowledged the defendant as their tenant. Since according to the defendant, a new tenancy has been created in favour of the defendant by way of payment and acceptance of such rent between them, the plaintiffs/respondents cannot evict the defendant/appellant from the suit premises in the present suit, as framed.