M.G. Mukerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ninth Court, Alipore, on March 8, 1972, in Title Suit No. 69 of 1966. The Respondents landlords filed the suit for ejectment along with claims for arrears of rent with interest and mesne profits. The case of the Respondents, inter alia, was that they were joint owners of premises No. 20C, Convent Road, and the Corporation of Calcutta, now known as Calcutta Municipal Corporation, took the said premises as tenant for the use of its Water Works Department at a rental of Rs. 440 per month exclusive of the occupier's share of taxes and that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation was represented by its Executive Engineer, Water Works Department. Rent receipts were issued by the landlord in the name of the said Executive Engineer, Water Works Department. The tenancy in respect of the suit premises was determined by a notice dated January 29, 1966 to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful vacant possession to the Plaintiffs on the expiry of the last day of March 1966 which was served on the Defendants on February 3, 1966. Since the Defendants failed and neglected to act on the basis of the notice and were wrongfully in occupation of the suit premises the prayer for ejectment was made. It was further asserted that a sum of Rs. 22,440 has been calculated in arrear of rent for 51 months from January 1962 to March 1966 from the Defendants. Plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 3,293 as interest thereof at the rate of 6 % per annum. It was also contended by the Plaintiffs that no part of claim for arrears of rent was barred by the law of limitation inasmuch as the Executive Engineer, Water Works Department, acknowledged on behalf of the Defendants by letter dated February 2, 1965, the liability to pay the said arrears. The Plaintiffs claimed sums equivalent to rent as mesne profits or damages in lieu of rent at the rate rent from the Defendants for their wrongful occupation of the suit premises for the period from April 1, 1966 till the date on which the possession would be recovered from them. It has been further alleged that the notice under Sec. 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Act as also under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was duly served on the Defendants;
(2.) Various defences were taken on behalf of the Defendants in their written statement contending, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs were to prove their status regarding the ownership of the suit property for their entitlement to receive rents and damages of the said suit property and that the principal Defendant Calcutta Corporation was not represented by the Executive Engineer, Water Works Department, and furthermore that the notice to quit was illegal, invalid, insufficient and bad in law which could not determine the tenancy. They contended that the ejectment could not be effected as the Defendant No. 1 was in occupation of the premises. The claim for mesne profits was also not maintainable in view of such continuing occupation of the Defendant No. 1 of the suit premises. There was no failure to pay rent as alleged or at all. There were proposals for adjustment of rate bills of the other premises against rents payable in respect of the suit property. They further contended that they were precluded from paying rent as a part of the premises was acquired by the Calcutta Improvement Trust and there was no proportionate reduction of rents though the Defendants were entitled to such deduction. The said rent also could not be deposited with the Rent Controller as the Plaintiff No. 1 had requested them not to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller as one of the cosharers had died and the question of heirship was yet to be settled. They also denied the Plaintiffs right to receive a sum of Rs. 22,440 or any sum of interest thereon without proportionate deduction on the basis of acquisition of a part of the premises by the Calcutta Improvement Trust. They alleged that a part of the Plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation and also barred under Sec. 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. They also challenged the notice to determine the tenancy as not being in accordance with law since the Defendant was originally inducted under a registered lease and on the expiry of the period of the lease the Calcutta Municipal Corporation was holding over as monthly tenant. The Defendants as such did not admit that the Plaintiffs were ever entitled to a decree for ejectment and khas possession or mesne profits or even for arrears of rent or interest.
(3.) The following issues were framed on the contention of the parties: (1) Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? (2) Was any valid and sufficient notice served upon the Defendants ? (3) Are the Defendants defaulter as alleged ? (4) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to get a decree for ejectment against Defendants ? (5) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to get a decree for arrears of rents, if so, for what amount ? (6) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits ? (7) To what other relief, if any, are the Plaintiffs entitled to?;