NURSING TIMBER WORKS Vs. AMALA BALA DASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals by two tenants against a judgment dated December 17, 1959 of the Judge, 4th Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, by which a decree of eviction was passed against both the two defendants separately in favour of the same plaintiff, namely, Sm. Amala Bala Dassi, who is the respondent in both the appeals. M/s. Shree Nursing Electric Stores was the defendant in ejectment Suit No. 1403 of 1957 while Jiwandas Mundhra carrying on business under the name and style of Shree Nursing Timber Works was the defendant in Suit No. 1058 of 1957. The suits were heard analogously by the learned trial Judge along with another Suit, namely, Suit No. 1159 of 1957. All the three suits were ejectment suits on the grounds of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the premises in the possession of the respective defendants in the suits. All the suits were decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and decrees of eviction passed against the defendants. Three separate appeals were filed against the one judgment which was delivered in respect of all these three suits. The appeal in respect of suit No. 1159 of 1957 has already been disposed of by a consent order. The present two appeals are, however, contested and we heard them together analogously.

(2.) The plaintiff's case in ejectment Suit No. 1403 of 1957 was as follows. The plaintiff is the owner of premises Nos. 43-D, 43-E and 43-F, Nimtala Ghat Street, Calcutta. These premises will hereinafter be referred to in brief as merely Nos. 43-D, 43-E and 43-F respectively. The defendant Messrs. Shree Nursing Electric Stores is a business firm and was the monthly tenant in respect of ground floor hall rooms at premises Nos. 43-E and 43-F at a rental of Rs. 115 and a tax of Rs. 11-12-0 per month. The tenancy was according to the English Calendar month. By a notice to quit dated February 11, 1956 the defendant was asked to quit, vacate and deliver up quiet possession of the rooms in his possession upon the expiry of March, 1957. The plaintiff contends that the defendant is not entitled to any protection of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), firstly, on the ground that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and tax for four months within a period of twelve months before the filing of the suit and, secondly, because the plaintiff requires the said rooms for her own occupation, namely for the expansion of a business carried on by her husband under the name and style of M/s. Bysack and Company. The defendant firm in its written statement denies that it is a defaulter in payment of rent and also denies that there is any reasonable requirement on the part of the plaintiff for the rooms under the defendant's tenancy. As to the plaintiff's story of default, the defendant states that the defendant was in the habit of paying its rent including the tax by cheque and that the plaintiff always accepted such cheques. The defendant tendered such cheques in payment of rent and taxes upto and including the month of September. 1956 and the plaintiff accepted the said cheques as usual. After that date, i.e. to say, from October, 1956 onwards the defendant deposited the rent and taxes with the Rent Controller Calcutta, month by month upto April, 1957. Rents and taxes for May and June 1957 were deposited in Court.

(3.) In ejectment Suit No. 1058 of 1957 the defendant M/s. Shree Nursing Timber Works, a business firm, was tenant under the plaintiff in respect of ground floor hall rooms at premises No. 43-F at a rental of Rs. 33-12-0 plus the occupier's share of taxes at the rate of Rs. 3 per month. The tenancy was according to the English Calendar month. By a notice dated February 11, 1957 the defendant was asked to quit, vacate and deliver up quiet possession of the ground floor hall rooms under its tenancy upon the expiry of March, 1957. In this suit also the plaintiff contended that the defendant was not entitled to any protection from eviction under the Act of 1956 for exactly similar reasons which the plaintiff pleaded against the defendant in Suit No. 1403 of 1957. The defendant in its written statement denies the plaintiff's allegations and, inter alia, contends that the defendant was not at all a defaulter in payment of rent. The defendant claims that following its usual practice the defendant tendered cheques in payment of rent and taxes from May, 1958 (sic) to November, 1956 and the plaintiff accepted and retained the said cheques. Thereafter from December, 1956 to April 1957 the defendant deposited the rent and taxes with the Rent Controller. Rent for May, 1957 was deposited in Court. The defendant also denies that the plaintiff has reasonable requirement of the hall rooms under its tenancy.