MIRA SEN Vs. DIPAK KUMAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed by Shri S.K. Chatterjee, District Judge Hooghly, dated May 31, 1972 in Title Appeal No. 309 of 1971 affirming those of Shri B. G. Chakraborty, Munsif, 1st court, Hooghly, dated June 29, 1970 in Title Suit No. 121 of 1970.

(2.) The facts of the case, may, briefly, be stated as follows : The plaintiff brought a suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant expressed his intention to vacate while sending the rents for November and December 1968 by Money Order. In the said Money Order Coupon he stated that he was to vacate the suit premises within 6/8 months. The said Money Order containing the notice was accepted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently wrote a registered letter to the defendant in order to ascertain on what date the defendant would vacate so that the plaintiff might make arrangement. Though the said letter was received by the defendant, the defendant did not give any reply.

(3.) The defendant contests the suit by stating that he never gave such Money Order coupon is a casual one. That can never amount to a valid notice. Against, the said writing was not by the defendant. The same was written by Ashoke Kumar Ghosh, defendant's brother, without the knowledge of the defendant and without the knowledge of the defendant and without his authority and consent. The learned Munsif found that the expression in the Money Order Coupon that the defendant would vacate the premises within 6/8 months did not amount to a valid notice. It was also held by the learned Munsif that such a statement was not made by the defendant and defendant's brother Ashoke had no authority to make such a statement on behalf of the defendant. In that view of his finding the learned Musif dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge agreed with the learned Munsif on finding that the statement in the Money Order Coupon was not a valid notice. He, however, reversed the finding of the learned Munsif and found that the statement in the Money Order Coupon must be considered to be the statement of the defendant and that Ashoke, defendant's brother, wrote the same under instruction from the defendant and the defendant cannot shirk the responsibility. As the learned District Judge found that there was no valid notice he found that the learned Munsif was right in dismissing the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up to this court.