TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. - (1.) THIS Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for eviction against the defendants/respondents in respect of the suit premises as described in the plaint and also a decree for mesne profits on the ground that the defendants have committed default in payment of rents and the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for own use and occupation. The said suit being Title Suit 75 of 2000 was placed before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur. The defendant No.1 contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. It appears that the dispute regarding landlord and tenant relationship between the parties was raised by the defendant No.1 and it appears that defendant No.1 also raised a dispute by taking the stand that the suit is bad for defect of parties. It appears that an additional issue was framed with regard to the question as to whether the suit is bad for non -joinder and/or misjoinder of the parties. The said suit ultimately came up for hearing when the learned Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 27th September, 2004 decreed the said suit on contest against the defendant No.1 and ex parte against the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and directed that the plaintiff/appellant does get a decree for khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendants therefrom, and the plaintiffs claim that mesne profits was also decreed with liberty to the plaintiff to take the appropriate steps in this regard. The learned Trial Court found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendants and that the original tenant was one Ramsaday Sinha. It may be noted here that the defendants are the sons of the said Ramsaday Sinha. The learned Trial Court held that from the evidence on record it transpired that the said Ramsaday Sinha got his daughters married off during his life time and the said daughters of Ramsaday Sinha have been living at their respective in -laws house. It further appears from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that during the pendency of the suit, one of such daughters of the said Ramsaday Sinha appeared and prayed for addition of party to contest the suit but such petition was rejected by the learned Trial Court and the order of the learned Trial Court was affirmed by the Honble High Court. It was argued on behalf of the defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court that the six daughters of the said Ramsaday Sinha are necessary parties to the suit. The learned Trial Court did not accept the arguments made on behalf of the defendant No.1 in the said suit and decreed the said suit on the ground that the plaintiff has been able to prove his bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises for own use and occupation and the defendant No.1 has failed to prove that the plaintiff has any alternative and suitable accommodation elsewhere. The learned Trial Court, of course, found that the defendants are entitled to get relief under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. With regard to the issue as to whether a valid notice was served upon the defendants or not the learned Trial Court found that a valid notice was served upon the defendants and the said issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.
(3.) THAT challenging the learned Trial Courts judgment and decree the defendant No.1 preferred title appeal No. 5 of 2005 which was placed before the learned Additional District Judge, Bankura, who by his judgment and decree dated 28th July, 2005 allowed the said title appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. It appears from the impugned judgment that two points were urged on behalf of the defendant/respondent No.1 before the learned Lower Appellate Court. One of such points was that the suit is bad for defect of parties and the other point was that the suit is bad as the same was instituted on the basis of a second notice without waving the first notice to quit. The learned Lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff/appellant had filed the suit against the three sons of the original tenant (Ramsaday Sinha) and the plaintiffs case was that the sisters of the defendants have impliedly surrendered the tenancy right in respect of the suit property because they have been residing in their respective father -in -laws house since their marriage and the marriages of all the daughters of the said Ramsaday were held during the life time of Ramsaday. It was the case of the defendant/respondent No.1 that the plaintiffs suit must fail because the daughters of the original tenant (Ramsaday) were not made parties to the suit. The learned Lower Appellate Court found that after the death of contractual tenant, all of his legal heirs and heiresses would become tenants in respect of the tenanted accommodation whether such heirs or heiresses are in possession or not. The learned Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit is bad for defect of parties and as such it is not maintainable in law.;