MONIRANAJ GHOSH Vs. NITYANANDA DE
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is a Plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration of the right of sub-tenancy of the Plaintiff under the Defendant at a rent of Rs. 20 per month according to English Calendar month and for a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent No. 1 from evicting the Plaintiff Appellant.
(2.) According to the Plaintiff, in or about March, 1942, he was inducted as a sub-tenant by the tenant. Thereafter, the landlord instituted a Title Suit No. 66 of 1951 for ejectment of the tenant. The suit itself was instituted oh August 14, 1948, and then it was dismissed on October 31, 1948. In appeal the matter was sent back on remand to the Trial Court On December 18, 1950 and it is thereafter that it was re-numbered as Title Suit No. 66/ 51 and then the ejectment suit was decreed on July 4, 1952. On May 20, 1953, the appeal against the ejectment decree was dismissed. As the suit was instituted under the Ordinance of 1946, the sub-tenants were no parties to the proceedings for ejectment. The suit was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement and the decree for ejectment was passed upholding the 'bona fide requirement of the landlord.
(3.) The present suit was thereafter instituted for declaration of the sub-tenant's right. According to Mr. Mitra, who appears in support of the Plaintiff sub-tenant, the -suit was pending while the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, was in force; but whether the suit was pending or not, is, according to Mr. Mitra, not material. What is material, according to him, is that under the said West Bengal Act of 1948 he acquired a right as a sub-tenant and though that Act was subsequently repealed his right under the Act has continued and, therefore, the Plaintiff has no right to eject him. Mr. Mitra next submits that the 1950 Act recognised the status of a sub-tenant. If the Defendant wanted to deprive him of the right of a sub-tenant while the Act of 1950 had been in force the Defendant should have taken steps to add him as a party to the proceedings after the 1950 Act came into force. Not being made a party, he is not bound by the decree in the earlier suit for ejection. Hence, according to Mr. Mitra, the Plaintiff is protected from eviction as he was a sub-ten ant and, therefore, the decree for ejectment cannot be executed against Mm as he was mot a party to the aforesaid proceedings.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.