- (1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of reversal remainding their suit for khas possession and mesne profits for fresh decision. The plaintiffs, the Commissioners of Naihati Municipality instituted the suit for khas possession of the suit land by removing the structure therefrom and for mesne profits. According to the plaint, the Commissioners of the Municipality let out the land to the defendant lastly by a settlement for a period from 17.9.54 to 16.9.57 at an annual rent of Rs.45/-. The defendant agreed to give khas possession of the land on the expiry of the lease without any notice. The plaintiffs retained the suit land under section 6(h) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, as the said land was required for municipal purpose. The plaintiffs asked the defendants to quit and vacate the possession of the suit land by a notice dated 25.2.58, though no such notice was necessary. But the defendant refused to accept the same and failed to comply with the said requisition. With the expiry of the month on 16.9.58, the tenancy of the suit land was determined and accordingly the possession of the defendant on the suit land from 17.9.58 had been that of a trespasser. In the circumstances the plaintiffs instituted the suit on 13.1.59 claiming the aforesaid reliefs.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant who contended, inter alia, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree under the terms of the lease and the land was long before taken for his residence and pucca construction had been made thereon. It was further stated that the plaintiffs were required to prove that the suit land had been retained. It was also stated that no notice to quit was served. Other allegations made in the plaint were generally denied.
(3.) The suit was tried on evidence before the learned Munsif who, by his judgment and decree, held that the suit land did vest in the State that in terms of the agreement of lease the defendant was bound to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiffs and the defendant's contention that no case was made by the plaintiffs about the requirement of the suit land for the purpose of the municipality written statement not necessary in view of the express provision of the settlement which provided that the defendant would vacate after expiry of the lease. Further the notice to quit was unnecessary and it was duly served. In the view that was taken the suit was decreed.;