A C BHATTACHERJEE Vs. ARUN KRISHNA ROY
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ARUN KRISHNA ROY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE appellant before us claims to be the real tenant in respect of the suit premises (Flat No. 3, Eastern Block, Premises No. 192, Upper Circular Road, Calcutta), which tenancy actually stands in the name of his brother-in-law who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) claiming to be the landlord of the aforesaid tenancy, instituted the present suit on February 28, 1958. The appellant resists the plaintiff's claim for khas possession of the disputed premises, as made in this suit, which was brought upon the allegation, inter alia, that the said respondent No. 2 was the tenant of the same and his tenancy had been duly determined by an appropriate notice to quit and upon the further allegation that he had illegally and unlawfully transferred the suit tenancy to the appellant without his (landlord's) consent.
(2.) THE notice to quit appears to have been duly served in November 1957 purporting to terminate the suit tenancy with the expiry of the month of December 1957, and the said notice not having been complied with, the instant suit was instituted on February 28, 1958. The present appellant was made a party to the suit upon the allegation, inter alia, that he was in occupation of the disputed premises on the strength of the above illegal or unlawful transfer.
(3.) BOTH the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statements, on the same lines, namely, that defendant No. 2 (the present appellant) was the real tenant, the defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2) being merely his name-lender and denying, necessarily, and, in particular, any transfer of the suit tenancy by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. There were also other defenses, which are not material for our present purpose.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.