J.Banerjee, J. - (1.) These are two appeals arising out of two suits, namely, T.S. 19/92 and T.S. 39/95, which suits were disposed of by the judgment dated 11th November, 1988 by Shri S.K. Prosad, Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore in the District of South 24-parganas.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts and circumstances leading to the present appeals are as follows:- The plaintiff/company brought T.S No. 19/92 against the defendant/ company alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff was the owner of premises No. 28/8, Gariahat Road, previously within P.S. Tollygunge, now P.S. Lake within the District of South 24-Parganas and the defendant/company became a tenant in respect of a flat as described in Schedule-A of the plaint in the said premises. Initially the monthly rent of the said flat including the rent of fixtures and fittings and rent for car parking space was Rs. 1,100/- only payable in advance by the 5th of the current month, for which rent becomes due and the said monthly rent and other charges were subsequently increased to Rs. 1,210/- since September, 1985. It is further alleged that the defendant/Company took the suit flat for the residential accommodation of its particular officer, Mr. Keshab Das, and the members of his family and for no other purpose and such condition was incorporated in a memorandum in writing dated 30th March, 1976 executed by both parties prior to the induction of the defendant as a tenant in respect of the suit flat. It was provided in such memorandum that if the tenant intends to use the tenancy for occupation of any other officer or employees it will seek for written consent of the landlord and the landlord would have the option to agree or disagree to such consent. It was further alleged that the defendant/company by a letter dated 6th of March 1992 informed the plaintiff/company that the said Mr. Keshab Das, Chief Engineer (Cement) had vacated the said flat and wanted to make repair and painting and allot the said flat to another officer. The said letter was received by the plaintiff on 12th March, 1992. The plaintiff informed on telephone to the effect that the defendant had no right to allot the flat in question to any other officer and the defendant company should surrender the said flat in favour of the plaintiff/company. But the plaintiff was informed by the defendant that it would not pay any heed to such request and it would repair and paint the said flat. In that background, the plaintiff brought the aforesaid suit for declaration that as per terms and conditions embodied in Clause 9 of the memorandum of agreement dated 30.3.76, the defendant had no right to allow any other officer or employee of the defendant/company to occupy the said flat after vacation of the same by Mr. Keshab Das and also for a declaration that the defendant had no right to proceed with repairing or painting in respect of the suit flat and for mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to deliver vacant possession.
(3.) The plaintiff/company also brought a title suit being No. 39/95 with the similar allegations in respect of the said suit flat alleging further that although the defendant was bound to vacate the suit flat after Mr. Das had vacated, yet the defendant/company not having vacated the said flat, the plaintiff had, by way of abundant precaution issued a notice dated 18th March, 1995, requiring the defendant/company to vacate the suit flat with the expiry of the month of April, 1995, asking the defendant to quit vacate and deliver up peaceful possession thereof. The said letter was sent under registered post and the same was duly served. In that suit, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for ejectment against the defendant/company from the suit flat more fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint and also for decree of damages and consequential reliefs.;