TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. - (1.) This Court has heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties.
(2.) The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit against the defendant/ appellant being Title Suit No. 1740 of 1986 in the City Civil Court Calcutta praying inter alia for a decree for khass possession after evicting the appellant from the suit premises, mesne profits and damages. The case made out in the plaint was inter alia to the effect :- (a) The defendant was a tenant under a registered deed of lease dated 28th April, 1959 commencing from 1st April, 1959 at a rental of Rs.250.00 per month in respect of the suit property. (b) In the year 1959 when the defendant was inducted as a tenant, Nripendra Kumar Das, Rabindra Kumar Das and Sudhindra Kumar Das jointly had two annas share, Smt. Juthika Das had two annas share, Smt. Charu Bala Das had four annas share which she settled in favour of the plaintiff No.1 by a registered deed of settlement with the condition that after her death her four annas share shall devolve upon the plaintiff No.1 and consequently on her death her share had devolved upon the plaintiff No.1; and Md. Rafique and others (nationals of Pakistan) had eight annas share in the premises No.12, Waterloo Street, Calcutta 69 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). (c) Rabindra Kumar Das looked after the entire affairs of the said premises also on behalf of the other co-sharers and he with the consent of all other co-sharers executed the aforesaid registered deed of lease as lessor and the said Rabindra Kumar Das would collect monthly rent from the defendant/respondent and thereafter distribute the same amongst other co-sharers according to their respective shares. In 1964 Nripendra Kumar Das, Rabindra Kumar Das and Sudhindra Kumar Das by a registered deed of exchange transferred their two annas share in the said premises to Hirendra Kumar Das. Juthika Das transferred her two annas share to Hirendra Kumar Das by a registered deed of exchange. Thus Hirendra Kumar Das became owner of four annas share in the said premises. In the year 1965 eight annas share of Md. Rafiq and others vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. Hirendra Kumar Das was permitted to collect rent from the tenants and, accordingly, Hirendra Kumar Das used to collect rent from the defendant/respondent and distributed such rent amongst the co-sharers according to their respective shares. (d) The lease period expired on 31st March, 1980 and the said Hirendra Kumar Das transferred his four annas shares to his only son Himadri Das by a registered deed of gift dated 30th December, 1981 and thus the plaintiffs became the owners of the said premises. (e) The lease commenced from 1st day of April, 1959 and expired on 31st March, 1980 by efflux of time but the defendant did not vacate and hence the plaintiffs were compelled to file the suit. (f) The suit property has been described in the plaint as two rooms, one bath room and one kitchen commonly described as suite No.4 on the Second floor at the said premises.
(3.) The defendant/respondent contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and alleged inter alia that the defendant was inducted by Rabindra Kumar Das as a monthly tenant in respect of the two rooms with attached bath, no kitchen was ever delivered to the defendant as a part of the tenancy. The defendant holds another monthly tenancy of suite No.4A on the same floor of the said premises. The defendant denied that there was any lease or that the lease expired by efflux of time on 31st March, 1980. The defendant claimed that the defendant has all along been a monthly tenant in respect of the two rooms and attached bath room and that the suit should be dismissed.;