P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is a suit for the recovery of premises No. 8 Latu Mullick Lane, Calcutta. The ground on which the ejectment is asked is, first, that the defendant has been using or allowing the premises to be used as a brothel & thereby has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the occupiers of the neighbouring premises, & secondly, service of notice dated 9/7/1949 by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta under the Bengal Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. The notice to quit is pleaded as having been served on the defendant & is dated 13/7/1949, asking the defendant to vacate on the expiry of July 1949. The written statement of the defendant denies that the premises are being used as brothel or that it is a nuisance or annoyance to occupiers of the adjoining or neighbouring premises. There is also denial of the service of notice by the Commissioner of police.
(2.) Mr. Banerjee appeared for the pltf. & Mr. Robi Roy for the defendant On behalf of the deft., the following issues were raised: 1. Has the defendant been using or allowing the premises to be used as a brothel as alleged in para. 2 of the amended plaint? 2. Has the defendant been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring premises? 3. Has the defendant been served with the Police notice dated 9/7/1949? 4. Is the notice to quit dated 13/7/1949 valid in law & binding on the deft? 5. To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? Mr. Banerjee appearing for the pltf. has accepted these issues.
(3.) A large number of witnesses hare been examined in this case & there is also an admitted brief of documents marked Ex. A in these proceedings.;