NAKUL MAHATO Vs. GITA RANI DEY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Rule the properiety of an order dismissing a miscellaneous appeal arising out of an order made by the learned Munsif on an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was challenged.

(2.) The facts, stated succinctly and relevant for the purposes of this case, are as follows:-

(3.) The defendant no. 1 who alone contested the suit denied the truth of the material allegations contained in the plaint and his case, stated briefly, is that the premises in question were not reasonably required by the plaintiff for the occupation by her and the members of her family, that he has been tenant in respect of the suit premises since 1964 and that after the death of one Tinkori who was the original owner of the suit premises his heirs separately asked the defendant not to pay rent to any one of the heirs and that accordingly no rent was collected by them.