SARADINDU SAHA Vs. NRIPENDRA KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the Defendants tenants challenge the judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 951 of 1971 of the Court of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta.

(2.) The Plaintiff-Respondent instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction against the said Defendants tenants from the suit room on the ground of default, subletting and also of own use and occupation of the Plaintiff. The case of the Plaintiff landlord was inter alia that Sri Saradindu Sana and Sri Madhabendu Sana were joint monthly tenants under the said Plaintiff in respect of the suit room at a monthly rental of Rs. 18-56 payable according to the English calendar month. Madhabendu Saha died on or about March 6, 1955, leaving behind him his heirs and legal representatives, viz. the Defendants Nos. 8 to 11 and the said heirs along with Saradindu Saha became joint monthly tenants under the Plaintiff in respect of the said suit room. The widow of Madhabendu Saha subsequently died. The Defendants without the knowledge and consent in writing of the Plaintiff had sublet the said room in its entirety to M/s. Sneha Decorators and the said Defendants had also defaulted in payment of rent for the room in suit. The Plaintiff also contended that the Plaintiff reasonably required this room for his own use and occupation. The Plaintiff further con-tended that the tenancy of the Defendants had been duly terminated by a notice of ejectment served on them, asking the Defendants to vacate the suit room by the end of June 1970, but as the Defendants failed to vacate the said room, the aforesaid ejectment suit was instituted by the Plaintiff.

(3.) It appears that only the Defendant No. 1, viz. Saradindu Saha contested the said suit by filing a written statement viler alia denying the allegations made in the plaint. It was contended by the said Defendant No. 1 that M/s. Madhabendu Saradindu Saha, a firm, was a monthly tenant under the Plaintiff in respect of the said suit room and the Defendant Saradindu Saha was a partner of the said firm. The Defendant No. 1 denied the allegations of the Plaintiff that the said Saradindu Saha and his brother Madhabendu Saha were joint monthly tenants of the suit room. The said Defendant No. 1 further contended that the tenants stopped receiving payment of rent in order to get rid of the tenancy and as such, the said firm M/s. Madhabendu Saradindu Saha was compelled to remit rent of the suit room by money order to the Plaintiff, but as the Plaintiff refused to accept the said rent the firm was compelled to deposit rent with the Rent Controller and the firm had been depositing rent with the Rent Controller. The Defendant No. 1 further contended that as no legal and valid notice of ejectment was served on the aforesaid firm, the said suit was not maintainable. The Defendant No. 1 further denied that the suit room was ever sublet to M/s. Sneha Decorators. It was contended by the said Defendant No. 1 that the said firm M/s. Madhabendu Saradindu Saha was still in possession of the suit room.