CHARU BALA DAS Vs. MADHU SUDHAN KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but on appeal, it has virtually been dismissed as the deposit which the learned Subordinate Judge directed the contesting defendant tenant to make to avoid ejectment has already been made. Against this appellate decision, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) The suit property comprises premises No. 38/1-G, Manicktola Main Road. The contesting defendant 1 was a tenant therein from the time of the previous owner Sahajadi Begum, from whom the plaintiff purchased the premises on 15-3-1951. In July 1951, the plaintiff gave the tenant defendant a notice to quit, requiring him to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of August, 1951, and upon the tenant's failure to quit, the present suit was instituted on 6-11-1951. The tenant was made defendant 1 and certain alleged sub-tenants were made defendants 2 to 4.

(3.) Ejectment was claimed, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for the plaintiff's own use and occupation and also on the ground of default in the payment of rent. This latter ground! was added by amendment of the plaint, but there can be no question that the amendment was rightly allowed. The contesting defendant duly filed his additional written statement.