SAMBHU NATH DAN Vs. KANAK KUMAR KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th February, 2009 passed by the learned judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 76 of 2007, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29th June, 2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 565 of 1997 dismissing the Suit.

(2.) Appellant's/Plaintiff's case in short is that he is the owner of two storied suit building by a document of transfer (Deed of release/Muktipatra, dated 25.03.1988 Exhibit-'2') wherein respondent/defendant resides as a tenant in respect of one room in the ground floor, having tile shed on bamboo framed structure. According to plaintiff, the respondent/tenant committed default in the payment of rent since June, 1994, and since the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation of his family members, having no reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere, a eviction suit being T.S. 565 of 1997 was instituted against the tenant taking grounds of defaulter and reasonably requirement, as available in the tenancy legislation, after serving ejectment notice dated, 1st March, 1997, determining the tenancy of the respondent with the expiry of the month of April, 1997, which was duly accepted by tenant/respondent by putting his signature in A.D. card, and since the defendant/tenant did not vacate the suit premises in terms of the eviction notice, the instant suit found its emergence.

(3.) The respondent/defendant tenant contested the Suit by filing written statement denying all the material allegations of the plaintiff and contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff had sufficient accommodation in the suit premises, and the plaintiff also suppressed the accommodation which he has purchased during the pendency of the suit, and thus denied number of the family members of the plaintiff, stated in the plaint. In the written statement, defendant/respondent, also denied to have committed any default in the monthly payment of rent, as alleged, and further challenged the legality, validity of the service of eviction notice, and thus prayed for dismissal of the suit.