- (1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
(2.) The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession and also for a decree of arrear rent and mesne profits against the defendant No.3/appellant and the other respondents mentioned in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. The plaintiff's such suit was numbered as title suit 34 of 2001 and was placed before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Krishnagar, Nadia. The plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property which is a shop room on the ground floor of a two storied pucca building on a certain plot of land. The original tenant under the plaintiff was one Dulal Chandra in respect of the said shop room where 'Dasakarma Bhander' was being run by the said Dulal Chandra at a monthly rental or Rs. 101/- payable according to the Bengali Calender month. The plaintiff's further case was that the said Dulal Chandra died leaving behind the defendants as his heirs and legal representatives but the defendants committed default in payment of rent after Jaistha 1399 B.S. The Plaintiff has stated in his plaint that through his Advocate the plaintiff served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the defendants but the defendants failed to comply with the notice and the plaintiff was compelled to file the said suit.
(3.) The defendant No.3 only appeared in the said suit to contest the same and filed written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint but admitting that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and that the said Dulal Chandra (father of the defendant No.3) was a tenant under the plaintiff at a rental of Rs. 70/- as per Bengali Calendar Month and that after the demise of the said Dulal Chandra the defendant No.3 had become a direct tenant at a rental of Rs. 101/- as per Bengali Calendar month on the basis of an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 on 7 th Sravana 1399 B.S. The defendant No.3's case was that neither the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 nor the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 had any tenancy right in the suit property. The defendant No.3 further alleged that the plaintiff did not serve any notice either upon the defendant No.3 or upon the other defendants. The defendant No.3 further stated in the written statement that the other defendants do not have a cordial relationship with the defendant No.3 owing to some family affairs and the defendant No.3 is living separately from the other defendants. The defendant No.3 has also alleged that the said Dulal Chandra used to pay rent to the plaintiff and subsequently the defendant No.3 also regularly paid rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not issue any rent receipt either in favour of the said Dulal Chandra or in favour of the said defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 alleged in the written statement that after the creation of the new tenancy in favour of the defendant No.3 the other defendants have no right in the suit property and they have no locus standi to claim any such right as tenant in the suit property and the defendant No.3 is the only tenant under the plaintiff. The defendant No.3 further alleged in the written statement that the defendant No.3 had sent the rental amount through money order on 13.03.2001 and 16.04.2001 but the same were refused.;