ABUL KALAM AZAD Vs. SUNHAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by the plaintiffs following leave, is directed against the judgments passed by a Single Judge of the High Court Division in Civil Revision Nos. 146 and 147 of 1987, making the Rules absolute after setting aside the two orders passed by the Munsif, Additional Court, Sylhet in Title Suit No. 117 of 1986, rejecting the applications for amendment of the written statement and for recalling PW 1 for re-examination.

(2.) To narrate the cases of the parties, in brief, as will be relevant for disposal of these appeals, plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of default and sub-letting in violation of the agreement of tenancy. The defendants were monthly tenants by sufferance at a rental of Taka 200.00 per month under the original lessor Abdus Sobhan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. Abdus Sobhan died during the subsistence of the monthly tenancy with Hazi Karam Ali, the original monthly tenant and predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Plaintiffs served a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to vacate the premises and thereafter the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendants.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1-3 and 7 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement contending, inter alia, that defendant No. 1 as tenant started business in the suit premises and paid rent to the original owner Abdus Sobhan and after his death to his successor plaintiff and defendant Nos. 9-12; that defendant No. 1 started firm in the suit premises under the name and style of "Haji Karam Ali Guest House" with his brothers defendant Nos. 2 and 3; that defendant No. 1 paid rent in his own name and subsequently in the name of the firm; that defendant Nos. 1-3 purchased the share of Muslema Khatun, wife of late Abdul Sobhan and Rahimunnessa daughter of late Abdus Sobhan by registered kabala dated 30.7.80; that defendants being co-sharer in the suit premises cannot be evicted: that plaintiffs demanded enhanced rent from the defendants and the defendants refused to pay the same and thereafter deposited rent in the Rent Controller Case No. 18 of 1980 in the name of plaintiffs and others.