BISWANATH PANDIT Vs. DILSUKHARI CHITLANGIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Malda, in O.C. Appeal No. 102 of 1969 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Malda in O.C. Suit No. 154 of 1967.

(2.) The defendant is the appellant in the instant appeal and the aforesaid O.C. Suit No. 154 of 1967 was instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents for ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises described in schedule 'Ka' to the plaint on the ground that the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises at a rental of Rs. 6/- per month according to Bengali Calendar but the said defendant had made default in payment of rent and for such default, the plaintiffs had earlier filed another suit being O.C. Suit No. 285 of 1954 for,the defendant's ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. The said previous suit, viz. O.C. Suit No. 285 of 1954, however, ended in compromise and a solenama was filed in the Court on the basis of which a consent decree was passed and in the said petition of compromise the defendant agreed to pay all arrears of rent and it was stipulated that if the defendant paid the said arrears of rent then he would not be evicted. There was a further stipulation that if the defendant would pay a further sum of Rs. 262/- within a fixed date mentioned in the said application then the plaintiffs would convey another plot of land to the defendant and the defendant would be entitled to dismantle the structure at the said premises and remove the same at his cost. The plaintiffs contended in the instant suit that in terms of the compromise decree, the defendant paid the arrears of rent but failed to make the further payment of Rs. 262/- on account of valuation of another land which was agreed to be conveyed by the plaintiffs on payment of the said sum. The plaintiffs also stated that the defendants made default in payment of rents subsequently for nine months from Jaistha 1373 B.S. to Magh 1373 B.S. and as such he was liable to be evicted. The plaintiffs also contended that the defendant's tenancy was duly determined by proper notice and the plaintiffs also required the suit premises for their own use and occupation by making a construction of a new building on the said land.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant by filing a written statement and it was contended by the defendant that he was a non-agricultural tenant in respect of the land and out of his own cost he erected the structures on the said land and as such his tenancy could not be governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The defendant also contended that the aforesaid compromise decree in the previous suit was effected by practising fraud on the defendant and the defendant had no knowledge about the contents of the said compromise petition and as such the compromise decree was also not binding on him. The defendant also contended that the land which was agreed to be conveyed by the plaintiffs to the defendant in terms of the said compromise decree was not at all a suitable land for construction of a house. After a contested hearing of the said suit, the learned Munsif came to the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in respect of the suit premises and the defendant was not a tenant in respect of the suit premises but the defendant really raised structures on the land out of his own expenses. The learned Munsif also found that there was no reasonable requirement for the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises. Accordingly the said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff.