- (1.) The summons has been taken out for final judgment under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court. The plaintiff has resorted to the aforesaid summary procedure the provision of which is set out hereunder : "Nature of cases in which applicable. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be applicable save to suits. (A) ....................................................... (i) to (iv)............................................... (B) for the recovery of immoveable property with or without a claim for rent or mesne profits by a landlord against a tenant whose term has expired or has been duly determined by notice to quit or has become liable to forfeiture for non-payment of rent or against persons claiming under such tenant". The present suit is for eviction of the defendant who has been described as a monthly tenant, and was inducted by the plaintiff at a monthly rate of rent. The let out premises is entire ground floor and first floor including a connecting staircase having an area of 3550.25 square feet more or less of premises No. 55, Bhupendra Bose Avenue, Kolkata-700 004 (hereinafter referred to as suit premises). The aforesaid tenancy has been determined by due notice. In spite of termination of tenancy the defendant failed and neglected to quit and vacate the said premises. Hence, the suit has been filed.
(2.) It appears from the records that the defendant entered appearance through Mr. Durga Sankar Mullick, learned Advocate in the said suit. This fact is evidenced by his letter dated 9th December, 2004, immediately thereafter the instant summons has been taken out. The summons and the supporting affidavit have been duly served upon Mr.Mullick and affidavit-of-service has been filed. In spite of service on 18th January, 2005 direction for filing affidavit was given though on that date none appeared. By a letter dated 19th January, 2005 which was received on behalf of Mr. D. S. Mullick, the plaintiffs Advocate on record duly intimated of the aforesaid order giving direction for filing affidavit. This letter was also received. On 27th January, 2005, the Advocate-on- record of the plaintiff duly forwarded a copy of the order dated 18th January, 2005. The aforesaid letter appears to have been received for and on behalf of Mr. D. S. Mullick for the defendant. The aforesaid facts have been established by filing an affidavit of service and the same is kept on record. Notwithstanding communication as above no affidavit of opposition has been filed. This matter appeared in the list on 24th March, 2005. On that date none appeared. The matter was adjourned till 21st April, 2005. However, the matter was heard on 25th April, 2005 and none appeared on that date too and the same was adjourned till 2nd May, 2005. On 2nd May, 2005 the matter was finally heard. On all those days none appeared on behalf of the defendant.
(3.) As such the statements and averments made in affidavit in support of summons are deemed to have been admitted.;