RENUBALA DASSI Vs. SARAT CHANDRA NASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against a conditional decree for ejectment passed against the petitioner, Sm. Renubala Dassi, under section 5, Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. The case of the opposite party landlord was that the petitioner was in possession of 2 kattas of land described in the schedule of the application as a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs. 4 per month according to Bengali calendar months. The opposite party claimed that he required the land for the purpose of building on the land and otherwise developing the land and discontinuing the system of thika tenancy. A notice to quit, dated the 10th July, 1953 was sent to the petitioner by registered post but the petitioner refused to accept the same. Another copy of the notice was sent under certificate of posting. As the petitioner did not vacate, the opposite party started proceedings under section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act on the 23rd April, 1954.

(2.) Before the Controller the petitioner contested the application for ejectment on the ground that notice was not valid and sufficient, that the application was bad for defect of parties and that the opposite party did not require the land for the purpose of building and development. These points were however decided in favour of the opposite party landlord and a conditional order of ejectment, was passed, viz., that the petitioner would be evicted from the suit land on the Opposite party paying or depositing the compensation agreed between the parties or in default of agreement of compensation determined by the Controller on the application of either Party.

(3.) There was an, appeal by the petitioner which was decided by Sri S.P. Chatterjee, Subordinate Judge, How rah. Before the appellate court the only points urged were that the notice to quit was not valid and sufficient, and that there had been Warner of the notice to quit by the landlord by acceptance of rent after the determination of the tenancy. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge however decided this point in favour of the opposite-party landlord and so dismissed the appeal. The tenant as petitioner has therefore filed this revisional application.