LAWS(CAL)-1989-3-2

DIPEN DUTTA Vs. KASHINATH HONDAL

Decided On March 09, 1989
DIPEN DUTTA Appellant
V/S
KASHINATH HONDAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. appeal is director against the order dated 25/7/79 passed by Shri R. Banerjee, Judge, 9th bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit NO. 1087 of 1977 holding that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and directing return of the plaint to the filing lawyer for presenting the same before the appropriate court on the ground that the came to the finding that the defendants were thika tenants and not the tenants of the suit premises to attract the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

(2.) THE plaint case is that Satya Charan Mondal and Pashupati nath Mondal, the predecessors-in-interest of the present defendants, were the joint tenants under the plaintiff - the joint owners and the landlords of the premises. After the demise of Satyacharan and Pashupati, the defendants had jointly inherited the tenancy and were joint tenants under the plaintiffs in respect of the tenancy comprising, the premises No. 15b, golak Dutta Lane, P. S. Jorasanko, Calcutta - 7 at a monthly rental of rs. 42/- only payable according" to Bengali Calendar. The plaintiffs determined the defendants' tenancy by a combined ejectment notice dated 17th February, 1977. Inspite of the due service of ejectment notice the defendants failed and neglected (to quit, vacate and make over the vacant possession of the premises. As such the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for eviction and khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendants there from and also for a decree for mesne profit on and from the first day of Baisakh 1384 B. S. till the defendants were evicted in due course of law.

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that their predecessors- in- interest Satyacharan and Pashupati constructed huts in the suit land owned by the plaintiffs and became thika tenants under the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs issued rent receipts for ground rents describing the rents as khajna.