PRODYOT KUMAR SEN, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals are against the Judgment and appellate decree dated 4.4.1996 and 20.5.1996 passed by Smt. Mita Basu Roy, Ld. Asstt. District Judge, Sealdah in Title Appeal Nos. 20 and 21 of 1994, were heard analogously and will be covered by single judgment.
(2.) SECOND Appeal No. 49 of 1997 is at the instance of a landlord and is directed against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.1.1994 passed by Sri S. Bhattacharya, Munsif, 2nd Court, Sealdah in title suit No. 22 of 1983 while second appeal 50 of 1997 is at the instance of a tenant and is directed against the said appellate judgment, as referred to above, confirming the decision dated 23.12.1993 passed by Sri S. Bhattacharya in title suit No. 35 of 1983. The plaintiff landlord filed two suits in respect of two tenancies for eviction of the defendants. In title suit No. 35 of 1983. The plaintiff's case is that they are absolute owners of the suit property and the defendant was a tenant under them in respect of three godown-cum-store rooms for the purpose of storing hosiery products at a monthly rental of Rs. 80/- which is payable according to Bengali calendar month. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent since Bhadra, 1382 and he was equally guilty for committing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiffs and their family members. The defendant has been using the suit premises for factory as well as for residential purpose without consent in writing from the plaintiff. The plaintiffs also require the suit premises for their own use and occupation as they have no alternative suitable accommodation. Accordingly, notice to quit was duly served but the defendants, having failed to vacate, the suit has been filed for their eviction.
(3.) IN suit No. 22 of 1983, plaintiff's case was that they are the owners of the suit premises and defendant is a tenant in respect of one room at a monthly rental of Rs. 50/- per month payable according to English Calender month. The defendant is a habitual defaulter and defaulted in paying any rent from September 1975. The defendant is also guilty of nuisance and annoyance, waste, damages etc. resulting in material deterioration of the suit premises. The suit property is also reasonably required by the plaintiffs for their own use and occupation as they have no other alternative suitable accommodation. Accordingly a notice to quit was served upon the defendant, but the defendant having failed to vacate the suit has been filed for their eviction.;