SOMNATH BANERJEE Vs. ARATI RANI CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.5.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Tinsukia in Misc. (J) 20 of 2010 arising out of Title Suit No. 23 of 2010 allowing the Plaintiff, the Respondent No. 1 herein, to insert the names of all legal heirs of the original tenant of the suit premises as Defendants at the argument stage.

(2.) Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. None appears for the Respondents.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Plaintiff, Respondent No. 1 herein, filed the Title Suit No. 23 of 2005 for ejectment of the Defendant No. 2, the Petitioner herein, as well as M/s. Emporium, a partnership firm, the Defendant No. 1, the Respondent No. 2 herein, stating, inter alia, in her plaint that on 2.1.1996, out of the houses situated over the schedule-A property, apart thereof consisting of two rooms, a bath room, latrine and a tube well, has been rented out to one Sri Haranath Banerjee (since deceased), the father of the Defendant No. 2, by an oral agreement entered into on 2.1.1996, fixing the monthly rent @ Rs. 600/- per month, payable in the first week of each succeeding month according to English calendar with further condition that the said rented premises would not be put on sublet and no construction, reconstruction, alteration, modification or damage would be made and also that the said rented premises would be handed over as vacant and khas possession by the Defendant to the Plaintiff or her authorized agent in case of default of payment of monthly rent or violation of any of the terms of tenancy or as and when the Plaintiff would ask her own use and occupation or for the development of the said rented premises, which for convenience hereinafter referred to as suit premises. During the life time of the said original tenant Haranath Banerjee, the monthly rent was paid regularly for the suit premises without any default and on payment of monthly rent, the Plaintiff also issued the rent receipts which continued upto the month of August, 1999 and some time in the month of September, 1999, the said original tenant expired and after his death, the Defendant No. 2, the Petitioner herein, came in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant under the Plaintiff on the same terms and conditions and the Defendant No. 2 also paid the monthly rent @ Rs. 600/- upto the month of December, 1999, but he failed to pay the said monthly rent on and from the month of January, 2000 even in spite of repeated requests and demands of the Plaintiff and thus he was a heavy defaulter. Further the said Defendant made some addition and alteration inside the suit premises without the consent of the Plaintiff and thus violated the terms of the tenancy. The Plaintiff was in need of the said suit premises for development of the same and also for her own use and occupation and she on many occasions personally and through her agents approached and requested the Defendant No. 2 to clear up the arrear rent of Rs. 37,800/- due from the month of January, 2000 to March, 2005, but the Defendant No. 2 did not clear up the same by showing this and that reason. The Plaintiff also requested the Defendant No. 2 to hand over the vacant and khas possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant No. 2 failed and neglected to comply with the said request of the Plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit.