Arun Kumar Mitra, J. - (1.) This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1995 passed by the Learned Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court at Howrah in Title Appeal No. 213 of 1994 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26th August, 1994 passed by the learned Munsif, 6th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 108 of 1989.
(2.) This appeal comes out of a suit for eviction, khas possession and mesne profit valued at Rs. 1,300/-.
(3.) The case as has been made out in the plaint by the plaintiff in summary runs as follows:- The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff purchased the suit properties by two Kobalas executed in 1947 and Kobala deed executed in the month of July 1951. The Garrage which was purchased by the plaintiff was being used by the plaintiff by garraging his Office car when he was in service of United Bank of India. The plaintiff divided the garrage into two parts. The Southern part was being used by the plaintiff and the Northern part was kept vacant for use as a common passage to the land between the aforesaid garrage. The Doba which was existing in the suit holding was developed by earth filling. The eastern front portion of the said northern part of the said garrage was being let out temporarily as shop room time to time. Sometime in February 1976 the defendant approached the plaintiff for letting out the said eastern front portion of the northern part of the garage for using the same as shop room. Initially, the plaintiff refused to let out the same as the plaintiff intended to use the suit premises as passage but on repeated requests of the defendant the plaintiff let out the suit premises on condition to vacate the same as and when it is required. The suit premises was let out to the defendant on and from 1.3.1976 while the back portion of the suit premises remained vacant and was under possession of the plaintiff. Thus the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 100/- payable according to English calendar month and has been running a shop under the name and style "Sanyal Tea Stores" for selling loose tea. From January 1987 the land behind the suit premises was developed. The defendant was being requested to vacate the suit premises therefrom. Instead of compliance with the request of the plaintiff, the defendant stopped payment of rent from March 1987. The plaintiff has further contended that the plaintiff requires the suit premises in view of the fact that the plaintiff's scheme for development of the back land has already been progressed. One plan for construction of a structure to be used as workshop for starting hosiery business for the plaintiff's second son who is physically handicapped, is sanctioned by Howrah Municipality. Unless and until the suit room is vacated, entrance passage to the said proposed workshop, business cannot be made ready and the business of the plaintiff's second son cannot be started. The plaintiffs have taken steps for construction of the said structure on the said back portion for the above purpose and has already acquired the western back portion of the northern part of the said garrage. The plaintiffs have further stated that the plaintiff has no other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere for making passage to the back land of the suit premises. At least the plaintiff on the aforesaid ground has determined the tenancy of the defendant by sending notice to quit and vacate the suit property with the expiry of the month of March, 1989. The said notice to quit was sent in the Regd. post with A/D. The said notice was duly received by the defendant.;