BAIDYANATH BHATTACHARJEE Vs. NIRMALA BALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendant's appeal against a decree for ejectment. The facts lie within a short compass and the dispute also is confined to two points.

(2.) The subject-matter of the suit is premises No. 7, Prannath Pandit Street. It was purchased by the plaintiff on 3-12-1946, from its then owner Kalidas Mukherjee. The defendant was a tenant under Kalidas. He was in occupation of the disputed premises as such tenant at the date of the plaintiff's purchase. The defendant's tenancy commenced under a registered lease, dated 7-4-1945. It was for a term of one year. The defendant, however, held over under Kalidas on the expiry of his said lease and, when the plaintiff made her purchase, this tenancy of the defendant by holding over was in force. By a notice to quit, served in January 1950, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the premises on the expiry of 7-4-1951, and make over vacant possession to her on and from the 8th and the defendant having defaulted to comply with the said notice, the plaintiff brought the present suit on 9-4-1951.

(3.) In the plaint the plaintiff, after stating that the defendant's tenancy had been duly determined by the aforesaid notice to quit, went on to allege, inter alia, that she reasonably required the suit promises for her own occupation and so the Rent Control Act of 1950, which was in force when the suit was instituted, would not afford any protection to the defendant and would not bar the plaintiff's suit. No other allegation in the plaint is material for our present purpose.