MANASH NATH RAY, J. - (1.) IN this Rule under sub-section 9 of Section 29-B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the petitioner has impeached an order dated 8th August, 1983, passed in Ejectment Case No. 11 of 82 (E.V.C.) by the learned Rent Controller, Calcutta and whereby an application made under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the opposite party, was allowed.
(2.) THE petitioner has stated that Shri Puranjan Mukherjee, since deceased, in or about 1970, inducted him as a tenant in respect of the entire ground floor of Premises No. 18/79, Dover Lane, Calcutta-700029, at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- payable according to English calender month. It was his case that the said Puranjan Mukherjee died on or about 25th June, 1978 and after his death, the petitioner was informed by Dr. Prodosh Ranjan Mukherjee the son of the deceased, by the letter of 16th September, 1978, that the said Puranjan Mukherjee died intestate and the said Dr. Prodosh Ranjan Mukherjee and Smt. Anjali Gangopadhyay were his only heirs and legal representatives. By the said letter, the petitioner has claimed to have been required to pay rent either to one Shri Prodosh Ranjan Mukherjee or in his absence to Borada Prosad Roy. The petitioner has stated that since he had no reason or occasion to suspect any foul play in the letter or also to suspect the bonafide of that letter, he went on paying rent as directed and in return, received rent receipts signed by P.R. Mukherjee. It was his case, that some time at the end of March, 1982, he received a lawyer's letter written under the instructions of the said Dr. Prodosh Ranjan Mukherjee, calming himself to be the Executor of an alleged Will of late Puranjan Mukherjee and thereby, he was for the first time informed that the opposite party, Anjali Gangopadhyay, was one of the legatees of the last Will of the said deceased and she reasonably required the premises in question, as occupied by the petitioner. As such, the petitioner was asked to quit and vacate the premises by the expiry of April, 1982. It was been stated that in the schedule of the concerned letter, the extent of the tenancy was described as one flat i.e., entire ground floor except one room, inclusive of privy, kitchen and bath-room. It was the petitioner's further case that inspite of such notice, which he claimed to be a purported one, rents as tendered by him were accepted by Shri P.R. Mukherjee, on behalf of the estate of late Puranjan Mukherjee, as before, and this continued till the month of August, 1982. It has been alleged that from September, 1982 onwards, the representative as mentioned above, refused to accept rent, whereupon the petitioner addressed a letter on 26th September, 1982 to the heirs of his land lord as mentioned above, asking them the reason for such refusal of accepting the rent. It was the petitioner's further case that none of the addressed even cared to reply to the said letter, although they had duly received such communication. It appears, that thereafter, the opposite party herein filed an application under Section 29-B of the said Act, which make provisions for a special procedure for disposal of application for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, before the learned Rent Controller, Calcutta, for recovery of khas possession, according to the petitioner, of portions of the Premises Nos. 18/79A and 18/79B, Dover Lane, Calcutta, claiming them to be held by the petitioner as tenant. From a reference to the concerned application, which has been disclosed as Annexure B to the petition, it would appear that the opposite party has claimed that she had been alloted certain portions of the Premises Nos. 18/79A and 18/79B, Dover Lane, Calcutta-700029, as a legatee under the last Will and testament of late Puranjan Mukherjee and that her husband Shri M.K. Gangopadhyay, who was an employee under the South Eastern Railway and was occupying a lease hold flat of Eastern Railway, has been asked to vacate the said flat, and the authorities of the Eastern Railway, were badly pressing for release of the flats belonging to them and which were in occupation of the officers of South Eastern Railway. Such claim against Shri Gangopadhayay, was made on the basis of a claim that he was owning his own house in Calcutta. It has also been stated by the opposite party that her husband was served with a notice for vacating the concerned flat and they would like to have the occupation of the premises which is being held by the petitioner, as they have no other alternative accommodation elsewhere. It was also claimed that in the circumstances as indicated above and more particularly in the application as in Annexure-B to this petition an order of eviction under Section 29-B of the said Act, was required to be passed for evicting the petitioner from the premises under his occupation. It was also claimed that the tenancy of the petitioner was duly determined with effect from 30th April, 1982, through the notice dated 23rd March, 1982 of the learned Advocate of the Executor of the Will i.e., Dr. P.R. Mukherjee and which was received by the petitioner. In the schedule to that application under Section 29-B the extent of the tenancy of the petitioner was described as "ground floor flat consisting of three bed-rooms, one drawing room, one dining space, one kitchen-cum-store room and one covered verandah inclusite of one privy, one bath, one covered utensils clearing shed and entrance passage an the boundary walls on three sides was described as north, sought and west and on east side by Dover Lane."
(3.) ON service of summons, the petitioner has claimed to have been duly entered into appearance and filed an application supported by an affidavit, praying for leave to contest the concerned application under Section 29-B of the said Act. It has also been stated that as the petitioner was not served with the copies of the documents purported to have been annexed with the said application under Section 29-B of the said Act and neither the opposite party herein had filed the probated Will nor the certified copy of the same with her application, the petitioner also prayed for leave to file an additional application, after those records were either produced or given inspection of. It has been stated in fact, the petitioner was served with those records, which included a Xerox copy of the purported last Will and testament of Puranjan Mukherjee and that too without the plan or map as referred to therein and according to which, there were allotments made to different legatees, including the opposite party.;