SATYABRATA BOSE Vs. AMIYA BALA BOSE
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
AMIYA BALA BOSE, ANIL KR.BASU
Click here to view full judgement.
Amitabha Dutta, J. -
(1.) The defendant is the appellant in this appeal which arises out of a suit of 1968 for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises comprising the entire 1st floor and a portion of the ground floor of the house at 52, Mahanirvan Road, P. S. Tollygunge, within the Calcutta Corporation as described in the Schedule to the plaint.
(2.) Admittedly the defendant was a monthly tenant in the suit premises under the plaintiff at a rent of Rs. 150/- per month payable according to English Calendar. The plaintiff who died during the pendency of the second appeal, instituted the suit on 21-11-1968 after service of a notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 (hereinafter called the P. Act) alleging that she was the owner of the suit house, that she had no other house property in Calcutta and that she required the suit premises for her own occupation and the occupation of her youngest son Dr. P. C. Bose, Technical Officer, Central Drugs Laboratory, his wife, two daughters and maid servant. It was alleged that the accommodation available to the plaintiff in the remaining portion of the ground floor of the suit house consisting of two rooms, half portion of covered verandah with kitchen, store and bath-cum-privy was quite insufficient and that a drawing room and a study room were required by her son and she required a thakur ghar. The other grounds for eviction stated in the plaint that the defendant damaged the suit premises by installing a domestic pump and that he used a portion of the suit premises for running a tutorial institution without the plaintiffs consent although the pemises in suit were let out for residential purpose, have been negatived by both the courts below.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement in which he pleaded that he was not aware whether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises that the plaintiff had her own house at Lucknow where she resided permanently and that the accommodation available to the plaintiffs youngest son and his family in the suit house was quite sufficient. He denied the other grounds for eviction taken in the plaint and challenged the validity of the notice of ejectment.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.