BISWANATH ROY Vs. ANNAPURNA ROY
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Referred Judgements :-
ASHALATA MITRA V. A. I. VIZ
GANESH CHANDRA V. MANMATHA NATH
TARAK NATH GUPTA V. LT. COL. K. K. CHATTERJEE
GUJRAT PRINTING PRESS V. NARAINDAS JEWRAJ
D R GELLATLY VS. J R W CANNON
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THIS Rule arises out of a proceeding under Sec. 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The ejectment suit in question was filed on June 23, 1959, the ground taken under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, being one under sec. 13 (1) (f) of that Act. The suit premises comprises a portion of Municipal Premises No. 3/1, Panditia Road, which, according to the plaintiff, who is the petitioner before us, was being Occupied by the defendant opposite party as a monthly tenant under him at a rental of Rs. 20/- per month. The plaintiff petitioner purchased the suit premises from its previous owner on February 20, 1959. According to him, due notice or intimation of this purchase was given by registered post to the defendant on or about February 25, 1959, and there was also the relative letter of attornment from his (the plaintiff's) vendor, the previous owner, to the said tenant defendant.
(2.)ON or about April 16, 1959, the plaintiff petitioner served the notice to quit upon the defendant by registered post, purporting to terminate her tenancy in respect of the suit premises and alleging that the same was required by him, the plaintiff, for his own occupation after demolition of the existing dilapidated building and re-building upon the same. To this notice, there was a reply on behalf of the defendant on April 28, 1959, and eventually, as stated above, the present suit was instituted on June 23, 1959.
(3.)EVEN prior to the institution of the suit and prior to the service of the notice to quit, the defendants, for reasons, best known to her, was according to the plaintiff-petitioner, depositing rents with the Rent Controller in respect of the disputed premises in the petitioner's favour upon affidavit and application for permission to make such deposit and upon admission that she was the tenant of the suit premises, and indeed, the sole tenant in respect thereof,- under the plaintiff-petitioner as landlord. This was the petitioner's allegation. in the plaint which contained other requisite allegations for purposes of the suit for ejectment: There was, however, in the plaint, no allegation and no claim of any outstanding or arrear of rent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.