JYOTIRMAY BHJATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st May, 1997 passed by the Learned Judge 8th Bench of City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.1140 of 1984, at the instance of the defendant/appellant.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the father of the plaintiff/respondent inducted the father of the defendants as tenant in respect of the suit premises. The suit premises consists of three rooms; one room on the ground floor, one room on the 1st Floor and one room on the 2nd floor together with one bath and privy on the ground floor. Rent of the suit Premises is Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty) only per month payable by the tenant. The suit premise is situated at the southern part of the Premises No.26A, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Calcutta in the heart of the city. The father of the plaintiff was the owner of two premises; one was premises No.26A, Bhupen Bose Avenue, and the other was Premises No. 28A, Bhupen Bose Avenue, Calcutta. The suit Premises being 26A, Bhupen Bose Avenue was gifted to the plaintiff by his father by a registered deed of gift executed on 10th April, 1972. The other Premises being Premises No.28A, Bhupen Bose Avenue was gifted to the plaintiff 's brother Sushil, by his father by a registered deed of gift. Thus, the plaintiff became the owner of the Premises No.26A, Bhupen Bose Avenue by virtue of the deed of gift executed and registered by his father. His name was mutated as owner of the said premises and he has been paying rates and taxes to the Municipal Authority in respect of the said premises, since the time when he acquired title in the said property by way of the said gift. The defendants claimed that after the death of their father, they jointly inherited the tenancy right in respect of the suit premises from their father. It is an admitted position that during the life time of the father, the Appellant (tenant), as per the instruction of the plaintiff 's father, started paying rent to the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises since the time when the said property was bequeathed to the plaintiff by his father. On the death of the defendant 's father being the original tenant, the defendant/appellant was accepted as a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. Earlier the plaintiff filed a suit being Ejectment Suit No.1253 of 1997 against the defendant/appellant for evicting him from the suit premises on the ground of his reasonable requirement. Though after a contested hearing, the learned Trial Judge held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he reasonably requires the suit property for his own use and occupation and for the occupation of his wife and they have no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere, but ultimately decree for eviction was not passed in the said suit as the Learned Trial Court found that the suit was not maintainable for defect of parties.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Trial Judge, on the death of the father of the defendant/appellant who was the original tenant in respect of the suit premises, his tenancy right in respect of the suit premises was inherited by all his legal heirs and representatives including the defendant/appellant. Since the other legal heirs and representatives of the original tenant were not impleaded as parties in the said suit, the said suit was ultimately dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.;