SANTOSH KUMAR GHOSH Vs. SACHINDRA NATH MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against a judgment of the Judge, Small Causes Court at Sealdah, decreeing the claim made by the plaintiff opposite party for mesne profits. The petitioners and opposite party No. 2 were tenants, under the opposite party No. ] in respect of premises No. 5 Nakuleswar Bhattacharya Lane, Calcutta, at a monthly rent of Rs. 62-6-6 p. By a notice to quit the opposite party No. 1 terminated the tenancy of the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 with the expiry of the month of February 1953. On March 31. 1953, the opposite party No. 1, as plaintiff, instituted a suit against the petitioners and opposite party No. 2 (defendants Nos. 1 to 4) for recovery of possession of the premises, on the plea that they were defaulters. In the said suit claim was made by the opposite party No. 1 for arrears of rent but not for mesne profits.

(2.) IN their written statements the; defendants in the said suit (petitioners and opposite party No. 2 herein) alleged that the entire premises were in possession of two sub-tenants, viz. , Lalmohan Choudhury and Jyotish Chandra Mitra. On November 17, 1953, the said suit was decreed exparte. The decree; was put to execution in T. Ex. Case No. 356 of 1953 and the opposite party No. 1 decree-holder realised from the petitioners the amount decreed as air-rears of rent. The decree-holder, however, could not recover possession of the premises because Lalmohan and Jyotish above-named resisted.

(3.) THEREAFTER Lalmohan and Jyotish each instituted a suit in the first court of the Munsif at Sealdah, for a declaration of their respective tenancy rights, in the premises in dispute, and obtained interim injunction restraining the opposite party No. 1 from taking possession. The learned Munsif however directed, while issuing the order of interim injunction, that both Lalmohan and Jyotish must deposit the monthly rent payable by them in Court.