SANGHATI BHATTACHARJEE (MITRA) Vs. MOHAMMAD HASEM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the original defendant Nos.2 to 4 (hereinafter described as the appellant) assailing the judgment and decree passed by the First Court of Appeal being the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Burdwan in Title Appeal No.4/3 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Additional Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No.134 of 1988, subsequently renumbered as Title Appeal No. 106 of 1994.

(2.) It is apparent to mention at the outset that the learned Trial Judge by her judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 106 of 1994 held the defendant No.1 as defaulter in payment of rent; secondly the defendant No.1had sublet the suit premises in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4; and thirdly, the plaintiff/ respondent required the suit premises reasonably for his own use and occupation for the purpose of setting up and extending his existing laundry business.

(3.) In appeal, however, the learned Judge in 1st Appellate Court held that the defendant No.1 had defaulted in payment of rent. However, the learned First Appellate Court refused to concurrent with the finding made by the learned Trial Judge to the effect that the defendant Nos.2 to 4/ appellants were sub-tenants under defendant No.1. On the other hand, it was held by the learned First Appellate Court that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and they are nothing but the trespassers in respect of the suit premises. Accordingly, the defendants/appellants were liable to be evicted. The learned Judge in First Appellate Court further held that when the learned Trial Court found the said defendants/appellants sub-tenants in respect of the suit premises and defaulters in payment of rent, there was no necessity to discuss and decide the issue as to whether the suit premises was reasonably required by the plaintiff/respondent or not.