GORDHANDAS JERAMBHAI Vs. U D BANERJEE
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
U D BANERJEE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE only point that arises for determination in these seven appeals is as to whether a transferee landlord is entitled to tack the defaults which had occurred during the regime of the transferor landlord, for the purpose of ejectment of the tenants on the ground of default under clause (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) THE respondents were tenants in different portions of premises No. 15a clive Row, Calcutta, under one Biswanath Mallick. On the 19th of December 1959 Biswanath executed an indenture of lease in favour of the plaintiffs for a period of 80 years with effect from the 1st of January 1960. He also gave them a notice in writing requesting them to attorn to the plaintiffs from January 1960. On the 22nd of January 1960 biswanath also transferred and assigned to the plaintiffs the arrears of rents due and payable by several of the tenants of the aforesaid premises. Thereafter the plaintiffs served notices of ejectment on the respondents and filed these seven suits for ejectment on the grounds that the defendants had defaulted in the payment of rents for more than 4 months within a period of 12 months. The defendants raised various defences with which we are not concerned in these appeals excepting with regard to the point that the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on the defaults during the regime of Biswanath for the purpose of ejectment. It appears to be a fact, and has also been found by the learned judge of the City Civil Court, that, excepting for the month of January 1960, the other defaults were with effect from september 1959 to December 1959 in all these suits. In some of the suits the defaults were for a period even prior to september 1959. The learned Judge found that the notices have been duly served and that the plaintiffs were the landlords and that there were these defaults at least from September 1959 upto January 1960. He found however, that the rents for January 1960 were deposited by the defendants-respondents under Section 17 (1) of the Act in time. He relied on the decision of this Court in (1) Daya v. Chapala (63 C. W. N. 976)and upheld the contention of the defendants to the effect that the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on the defaults for a period prior to January 1960, and in this view dismissed the suits. It is an admitted position that if the plaintiffs cannot lack the defaults occurring before january 1960 during the regime of the transferor landlords, the defendants tenants would not be defaulters liable to be ejected in these suits.
(3.) ALL these seven suits were tried together by the learned Judge as common questions of law and facts were involved, and all these appeals have been heard together at the request of the learned Counsel on both sides and this judgment governs all these seven appeals.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.