NITYA NAND SINHA Vs. KHITISM CHANDRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is regrettable that this second appeal has been pending disposal in this Court for about 13 years. This case reveals the long legal battle between the land-lord and the tenant. While the Respondent-land-lord, an old person, after retirement from service, with the desire to occupy his residential house in the city, instituted the suit 18 years back, the tenant a local Advocate, successfully resisted the landlord, although he had built his own residential house in the city before institution of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted Title Suit No. 103 of 1977 in the court of the learned Munsif for a decree for recovery of Khas possession of the suit premises fully described to the schedule of the plaint, after evicting the defendant-appellant therfrom. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was the tenant in respect of the suit premises for a specified period of eleven months commencing from 1.4.1976 at a monthly rental of Rs. 25/-. But after expiry of the specified period of lease on 28.2.1977, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises although the defendant had constructed his own house and promised to vacate the tenanted premises after expiry of the period of lease. Further, the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith required the suit premises for his own use and occupation.

(3.) The defendant-appellant having failed to file written statement for a considerable time, the suit was heard ex-parte by the learned Munsif and during ex-parte hearing, the Memorandum of settlement of oral lease for the specified period of eleven months commencing from 1.4.1976 was filed and proved and marked as Ext. 1. However, before passing ex-parte judgment, the defendant having filed written statement, the suit was heard on merit. In the hearing of the suit on merit, the plaintiff-respondent besides adducing oral and other documentary evidences, proved execution of the Memorandum of oral lease, but same being an unregistered instrument, the learned Munsif did not admit thereof in evidence and the document was marked as Ext. X-1. The learned Munsif after conclusion of the hearing, by the judgment dated 7.5.1980 dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that tenancy was not for specified period but from month to month and the plaintiff failed to establish that he reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation.