SUNIL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. MADAN GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned judge, VIIIth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Appeal No. 11 of 2004 affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Judge, 4th bench of Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 66 of 2000.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff/appellant, in short, is that he purchased the suit premises by registered deed dated 23. 02. 1996 from Smt. Krishna Mallick. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the monthly tenants under Smt. Krishna mallick before the purchase of the suit premises by the plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 140/- according to English calendar month. Smt. Krishna Mallick sent a letter attornment to all the tenants of the premises as well as to the defendants by letter dated 23. 02. 1996 thereby intimating the fact of sale of the suit premises to the plaintiff and requesting them to pay the monthly rent in respect of the suit premises to the plaintiff. But they did not pay any rent to the plaintiff since the date of his purchase in compliance with the said letter of attornment. The plaintiff thereafter determined the tenancy of the defendants by notice to quit dated 03. 01. 1997. The defendants received the notice on signing the A/d Cards. The defendants did not vacate the suit premises. The defendants were the habitual defaulters in payment of their monthly rents. Moreover, the defendants have made substantial, unauthorized and illegal construction both within and outside the suit premises i. e. in their tenanted portion. The defendants with the help of the miscreants and antisocials have been creating various nuisance, annoyance and disturbances in the suit premises. The defendants have illegally installed heavy machineries in the suit premises converting the suit premises to commercial and business purpose. The suit premises were let out to the defendants solely for residential purpose. The defendants have violated and acted in contravention of the provisions of clause (m), (o), (p) of Section 108 of the transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. For the said reasons the plaintiff instituted the suit before the learned Court below for ejectment.

(3.) THE defendant Nos. 1 and 2/respondents contested the suit contending, inter alia, that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties. Originally the defendants were monthly tenants under smt. Krishna Mullick at a rental of rs. 120/- per month and subsequently by agreement dated 04. 6. 1981 the rental of the suit premises was enhanced to Rs. 130/- per month. The plaintiff refused to accept the rent of the suit premises and, as such, the same was duly deposited with the office of Rent Controller, Calcutta regularly. The notice allegedly served upon the defendants was bad in law. The other allegations raised in the plaint were denied by the defendants.