- (1.) Today when the appeal was called out for hearing, none appears on behalf of the respondents. This Court has heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and has considered the materials on record.
(2.) The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for eviction against the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants inter alia on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement upon the building and rebuilding of the suit premises. It appears from the facts of the case that on 21.6.1975 the landlord had issued a notice of ejectment to the tenant but did not file any suit pursuant to the said notice of the year 1975. The landlord issued a second notice to quit on 10.10.1988 which was served upon the defendants in the suit for eviction and pursuant to such second notice the present suit for eviction was filed against the defendants. The said suit being Title Suit No. 210 of 1988 was contested by the defendant and ultimately the said suit came up for hearing before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Ranaghat, Nadia and the learned trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 28.3.2000 dismissed the said suit by observing that there is ample cause of action for the suit but since the second notice to quit was illegal and invalid, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any decree for eviction. The learned trial Court came to the finding that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent but since the suit was not maintainable as it was based on the second notice to quit which was illegal and invalid, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any decree. The learned trial Court was of the view that since the first notice to quit had not been waived, there was no legality in bringing of the suit on the basis of the second notice. The learned trial Court further observed that after the issuance of the first notice no new tenancy was created and there is no proof that the old tenancy had continued as it will appear that the defendant also did not pay any rent to the plaintiffs after the first notice.
(3.) Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs filed a Title Appeal No. 5 of 2004 which was placed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranaghat, Nadia and the said Title Appeal came up for hearing when the learned First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 19.9.2006 allowed the said appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court came to the finding that the defendants in the suit were defaulters in payment of rent and they were not entitled to any protection under 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The learned First Appellate Court also decided the question as to whether the suit was bad for defect of parties and came to the conclusion that the suit was not bad for defect of parties as a question in this regard was raised by the defendants in the suit. The learned First Appellate Court found that the notice to quit dated 10.10.1988 is valid and sufficient and it determined the contractual tenancy of the defendants in the suit and the said second notice to quit was served upon the defendants.;