ARUN KUMAR PUSTI Vs. RAJ NARAYAN THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment of affirmance passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Midnapore in other Appeal No. 98 of 1996 affirming the judgment and the decree passed by the leaned Munsiff, 1st Court at Midnapore in other suit no. 41 of 1982, at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants.

(2.) LET me give a short background of this case leading to the filing of instant second hereunder: the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/respondent herein on various grounds under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, such as (i) default in payment of rent since January, 1980, (ii) causing acts of waste and damages resulting material deterioration of the condition of the suit premises, (iii) causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiffs and their neighbours, (iv) change of user of the suit premises without obtaining permission in writing from the plaintiffs, (v) reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs and the members of their family and (vi) for building and rebuilding, addition or alteration of the suit premises. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed his written statement denying the allegations made out by the plaintiffs in their plaint. The grounds on which such eviction was sought for by the plaintiffs, were denied by the defendant categorically. The service of ejectment notice upon the defendant and/or the legality, validity and/or sufficiency thereof, was also challenged in the said written statement.

(3.) AFTER entering appearance in the said suit, the defendant filed an application under Section 17 (2) and (2a) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Though the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not challenged by the defendant in the said application but the rate of rent and the period of default, were disputed by the defendant in the said application. The defendant stated that the rate of rent payable by the defendant in respect of the suit premises is Rs. 30/- per month and not Rs. 60/- as claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant further stated that he deposited the rent in respect of the suit premises upto June, 1981. Thus, he disputed the plaintiffs' claim to the effect that the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent since Jaunary, 1980.