SUBHRA MUKHERJEE Vs. M/S. BENGAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.
LAWS(CAL)-2014-1-3
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 10,2014

SUBHRA MUKHERJEE Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SOUMEN SEN, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the Scheduled portion of Premises No.63, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata ­ 700 016 as described in Schedules A and B to the plaint and other monetary reliefs. The owner of 5000 sq.ft. super built up area on the second floor and 120 sq. ft. area on the roof of Premises No.63, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata ­ 700 016 (hereinafter referred to as 'first demised portion') and 1000 sq. ft. super built up area on the ground floor of the said premises (hereinafter referred to as 'second demised portion'). The plaintiff demised the said portion of the premises to the defendant by and under three documents, namely, 31st October, 2009 and 1st July, 2011 in so far as it relates to the first demised portion and 16th July, 2010, with regard to the second demised portion.
(2.) UNTIL determination of the tenancies, the defendant was paying Rs.1,32,000/ - per month in respect of the first demised portion and Rs.45,000/ - with the regard to the second demised portion. Due to default in making payment of rents in respect of both the demised portions, the plaintiff issued three several notices all dated April 25, 2013, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and called upon the defendant to quit, vacate and make over khas and vacant possession of the aforesaid tenanted portions within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice. The defendant received the said notices on 25th April, 2013. However, the defendant had failed and neglected to make over possession of the demised portions to the plaintiff. Hence this suit. In spite of service of writ of summons, the defendant did not enter appearance in the suit. The report of the Deputy Sheriff dated 28th November, 2013 shows that writ of summons have been duly served upon the said defendant. In spite thereof, the said defendant had failed to appear and contest the proceeding.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the plaintiff is not obliged to adduce any evidence in view of the failure of the defendant to appear and contest the proceeding in spite of opportunities being given to the said defendant to appear and contest, the plaintiff appears in person as a witness and produced documents to establish her claim in the suit.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.