JOGESH CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. MONORAMA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant -tenant in a suit for ejectment is the Appellant in the present appeal. The suit was instituted on ground of reasonable requirement and on ground of default. The Plaintiffs could not establish their case as to reasonable requirement but succeeded on the ground of default and the suit was decreed accordingly. An appeal by the tenant failed.

(2.) The learned Advocate -General appearing on behalf of the Appellant has challenged the judgment of the Court of appeal below on two main grounds. His first contention is that the Court of appeal below has entirely misunderstood the defence plea or case, about an agreement or arrangement regarding mode and time of payment of monthly rent. His next contention is that the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge as regards payment of rent for the controversial period or for the period in default and acceptance of rent for the said period by Plaintiff No. 4, are contrary to materials and evidence on record and the said findings are perverse. He has also contended that the Court of appeal below did not decide the issues before him on the basis of evidence and materials on record and the said Court overlooked some materials on record and to some extent proceeded on conjectures and accordingly, the judgment of the Court of appeal below has been vitiated.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Advocate -General, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case and also other aspects somewhat in detail. The suit property comprises of one room and a garage in the ground floor of premises No. 34, Lake Road, P.S. Tollygunge. Late Rai Bahadur Jogendra Nath Gupta, a retired engineer to the Government of Assam, was the husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and father of the other Plaintiffs and was owner of the said premises No. 34, Lake Road. The Appellant was inducted as a tenant by him in 1941 and the agreed monthly rental payable at the material time was Rs. 50 according to English calendar. On the death of Rai Bahadur Jogendra Nath Gupta, the Plaintiffs became owners of the said premises and it has been alleged, that so long Rai Bahadur was living, the Appellant was paying rent regularly, but he became very irregular in payment of rents after his death. It has been further alleged that the Appellant has defaulted in payment of rents from the month of April, 1960 and that on account of rent, there is an arrear to the tune of Rs. 600 calculated from the month of April, 1960 to March, 1961.