IN MATTER OF Vs. SAMBHU NATH SHOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second appeal emerged from the judgment and decree dated 23rd October, 2017 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 4th court, Burdwan in title appeal no. 60 of 2016 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2016 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Additional Court, Burdwan in title suit no. 1 of 2005 and the only point taken before us is that the notice U/s 6 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is bad, invalid and defective and, therefore, the suit for eviction is liable to fail.

(2.) It would be relevant to narrate the salient facts of the instant case to consider the points so urged before us for the purpose of admission of second appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The plaintiff no.1 and his brother namely Kisan Prosad Show purchased the entire premises, as described in Schedule A to the plaint from the erstwhile owner on the basis of sale deed dated 25.08.1970. Subsequently the said large premises was partitioned amongst the co-owners upon execution and registration of deed of partition dated 21st March, 2001. By virtue of the said partition deed, the tenanted premises described in schedule B to the plaint falls within the allotted portion of the plaintiff no.1 and, therefore, the defendant / respondent became a tenant under it . It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant was paying rent of Rupees. 43 /- per month according to english calendar and defaulted in payment of rent more than four months within the calendar year. A notice to quit was issued U/s 6 (4) of the said Act giving one month time to the defendant / respondent to vacate the said premises. The said notice was issued on 3rd September, 2003 and was sent to the defendant / respondent by registered post with acknowledgment due card asking him to vacate by the end of October, 2003. Thereafter a suit for eviction being title suit no. 1 of 2005 was filed before the Civil Court seeking eviction not only on the ground of default in payment of rent, but also on the ground of sublete and reasonable requirement. It is alleged in the said plaint that the defendant / respondent has sublet the suit premises to Shibnath Shou and Shin Janam Prosad Shou without the written consent of the plaintiff and the factum of obtaining consent can be gathered from the fact, that apart from the defendant / respondent they are also carrying on the business from the suit premises. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff required the suit premises to extend their business which is being carried on from the portion of the entire premises.