KUTUBUDDIN AHMED Vs. HASNA BANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is at the instance of the defendant and arises out suit for eviction of the said defendant from the remises as a monthly tenant and realisation of arrear rent. The suit was decreed by the trial court but the decree was reversed in appeal. A learned Single Judge of the High Court Division, Rangpur Bench, by the impugned judgment and order dated 15th November, 1984 passed in Second Appeal No. 138 of 1979 set aside the appellate judgment and decree and restored those of the trial court.

(2.) Defendant then obtained leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court Division contending that the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs are landlord of the defendant is perverse, unsupported by any evidence and that there is also no basis for the finding that the defendant paid rent to the plaintiffs' guardian, Dr. Aziz Meser Mohammad Ali in that the counter-foils of rent-receipts produced by the plaintiffs in support of their claim contained no signature of the tenant defendant. Leave was granted to consider the point raised by the defendant as it appeared that complicated question of title as involved in the suit.

(3.) Respondents who are wife and son respectively of Dr. Asiz Meser Mohammad Ali (P.W.1) instituted the suit being other Suit No. 13 of 1974 in the Court of Munsif, Nilphamari for the aforesaid reliefs on the averments, inter alia, that the properties described in the schedule to the plaint previously belonged to Dinerdra Nath Ganguli who entered into an agreement on 11.8.19.66 with Dr. Aziz Meser Mohammad Ali for sale of the suit property. Upon execution of the said agreement the plaintiffs were delivered part possession of the suit property. Thereafter on 10.10.69 the plaintiffs purchased the suit property by two registered kabalas Ext. 2 and 2(ka). The defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs' vendor in "kha" schedule premises at a rental of Tk. 20/- per month. After the purchase by plaintiffs the defendant also took monthly lease of the suit premises from Dr. Aziz Meser Mohammad Ali, who acted on behalf of the plaintiffs. Defendant is a habitual defaulter and plaintiffs required the suit premises for their own use and occupation. They terminated the tenancy by serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act but the defendant did not vacate the suit premises.