PANKAJ KUMAR SANTRA Vs. ASISH NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is with some regret that it has to be recorded that a completely different stand on facts has been taken on behalf of the respondent upon, possibly, the respondent discovering that he may have no legal right to be in possession of the suit premises. Unfortunately, the change of stand has taken place after the Court's mind was indicated to Advocate for the respondent on the last occasion.

(2.) It is not in dispute that one Kalipada Dey was the original tenant at the suit premises. Upon Kalipada's death in 1971, Kalipada's widow Susama and daughter Ranjita inherited the tenancey. The notice to quit was issued on Oct. 01, 1971 to both Susama and Ranjita. It appeared, prior to today, to be the admitted position that at the relevant time Ranjita was married and did not stay at the suit premises. However, it is now sought to be asserted on behalf of the respondent that Ranjita resided with her mother at the suit property at the time that the notice was issued to the heirs of Kalipada. It is also recorded that it is the appellant's case that the notice to Ranjita was delivered to Ranjita at some other address and not at the suit premises.

(3.) It is not in dispute that subsequently, Ranjita may have moved out from the suit premises and Ranjita's daughter lived at the suit premises with maternal grandmother Susama. During the pendency of the suit, the property was transferred by the erstwhile owners, to the present appellant. The suit has now been dismissed and the appeal arises from such judgment and decree of June 30, 1997.