PRABHABATI DAS Vs. R R JONEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against a judgment of reversal. The plaintiffs instituted the suit on january 10, 1968 for recovery of possession of the suit premises comprising three rooms, kitchen, bath, privy and balcony of the Second floor of premises 23/a, Justice Chandra Madhab Road, calcutta, held by the defendant under the plaintiffs as a monthly tenant. The rent of the suit premises was Rs. 68/-per month according to English calendar month. The tenancy was determined by a notice to quit determining the tenancy with the expiry of May, 1967 which was duly received by the defendant. The grounds for eviction which are now material were that the defendant was a def0ulter in payment of rent from January, 1960 and further he had sub-let the suit premises to one J. C. Khosla without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and with his family and belongings shifted to 27, Rowland Road, Calcutta. As the requisition under the notice was not complied with the suit was instituted for the recovery of possession and for mesne profits.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, stating inter alia that he was a tenant under the plaintiff No. 1 Provabati Das and paid rent to her directly. On her refusal to receive rent on due tender he deposited the monthly rent as and when the same became due, with the Rent controller to the credit of the said landlady till the institution of the suit. It was accordingly denied that he was a defaulter in payment of rent. As to subletting it was stated by the defendant that he did not shift with all his belongings and J. C. Khosla, his near relation, was residing there with his permission, but there was no subletting. It was accordingly submitted that the suit should be dismissed.

(3.) ON a trial an evidence, the learned munsif found that the notice was valid, legal and sufficient both under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as also under Section 13 (6) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and was duly served. It was however found that the defendant was defaulter from January 1960 to June 1967 but it was not possible to hold on evidence adduced that the defendant had sublet the premises as he had possession of one room and had not removed all his belongings. The suit was accordingly decreed.