Ranjan Kumar Mazumdar, J. - (1.) The instant Second Appeal is at the instance of the defendant-appellants and this is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Birbhum on 31.7.91 in Title Appeal No. 13 of 1990 confirming the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.89 passed by the learned Munsif, Suri, Birbhum in Title Suit No. 54 of 1983.
(2.) The case of the defendant-appellants was in brief that the plaintiff- respondent instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 54 of 1983 in the Court of learned Munsif, Suri for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises. In the said suit, the plaintiff-respondent claimed that he was the owner of the suit premises and that the defendant No. 1-appellant was a tenant under him at a monthly rental of Rs. 61/- payable according to English calender month. It was also alleged that the defendant No. 1-appellant was a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. It was also averred that although the defendant No. 1- appellant was inducted in the suit premises for carrying on his business of purchase and sale of wheat, rice and paddy, he sublet the suit premises to defendant No. 2 without the consent of the plaintiff. It was also averred in the plaint that the accommodation of the plaintiff-respondent was not sufficient and hence he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and also for building and rebuilding. It was also alleged that defendant No. 1-appellant caused damages to the suit premises inasmuch as he constructed some structures without the permission of the plaintiff- respondent. It was also claimed by the plaintiff-respondent that he duly served notice of ejectment on defendant No. 1-appellant under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) Defendant No. 1-appellant contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying all material allegations brought by the plaintiff-respondent against him. According to the defendant No. 1-appellant, he was never a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and also never caused any damage to the suit premises. It was also averred that the plaintiff-respondent did not require the suit premises for his own use and occupation at all. Again according to the defendant No. 1-appellant, the story of his subletting the suit premises to defendant No. 2 was entirely concocted and hence the suit was liable to be dismissed.;