DHURJATI MOHAN DAS Vs. BALAI CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an appellate order dated 25th Aug., 1967, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midna-pore, affirming the order of the learned Munsif dated 12-11-66 in a proceeding under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. It appears that the petitioners are landlords in respect of the disputed property held originally by the opposite party No. 2 as tenant. He sold his interest to opposite party No. 1 by a registered conveyance dated 19-12-55 who in his turn sold the suit property to the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 by a conveyance dated 12-12-58. It may be stated here that the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of opposite party No, 2, the tenant. The petitioners' case is that they were not made aware of these transfers which were fraudulently kept back from them and their father who was their pre-decessor-in-interest and only in the month of April/May, 1965, opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 approached them for issue of rent receipts in respect of the disputed property in their name stating that they had acquired these lands by purchase. The petitioners thereafter were put to enquiry and became aware of the transfers made in respect of the suit property and soon after on 29-6-65 filed this application for pre-emption in respect of the disputed lands. It was stated in their application that the petitioners were owners in possession of the contiguous land and they came to know of the aforesaid transfers for the first time in May, 1965. They require the suit properties as their accommodation in their adjacent bastoo was not sufficient.

(2.) The application was opposed by the opposite parties who submitted that the application was barred by limitation and further that the landlords did not establish their case of requirement of the disputed premises.

(3.) The learned Munsif in a trial on evidence held that there was fraud on the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, their father, who died in 1959 as also on them as the transfers were kept back from him and them thereafter. It was held that time would run from the date of knowledge in May, 1965, and accordingly the petition was not barred by limitation. As to the requirement, the learned Munsif held that there was no evidence to support the case of the petitioners and accordingly the application was dismissed. On appeal, the learned Judge held that the application was barred by limitation and further in agreement with the learned Munsif it was held that the petitioners' requirement was not proved. This Rule under Article 227 of the Constitution is against this decision,