- (1.) The present suit for eviction, realization of rents and taxes to the tune of Rs. 1,03,962/-, mesne profits and other reliefs was instituted by the plaintiff Sita Devi Haralalka, since deceased and substituted by her husband and three sons being her heirs and legal representatives, on the grounds of default and reasonable requirement for own use and occupation.
(2.) A thumbnail sketch of the plaintiff's case is that she is the owner of flat No. 1C on the first floor of Russel Apartment at 12B, Russel Street, Calcutta -16, and the defendant-company was a tenant in respect of the same at a rental of Rs. 2,000/- including service charges of Rs.500/- plus Rs.250/- as occupier's share of Corporation taxes, payable according to English calendar month till April, 1979. Upon grant of a superior lease/tenancy by her in favour of her daughter-in-law Smt. Sangeeta Haralalka for a period of two years three months i.e. from May 1979 till August 1981, the defendant paid rent and service charges to the said Smt. Sangeeta Haralalka. The said lease in favour of Sangeeta was determined by efflux of time and Sangeeta surrendered the lease from September 1981. The defendant failed to pay rents and service charges from September, 1980 and occupier's share from 20th December, 1977 and after adjustment of rents for October and November 1980, the dues including statutory interest computed upto December, 1983 is Rs.1,03,962/-. The plaintiff's family consists of her husband, two married sons, one unmarried son and one minor grandson. She has undivided 1/5th share in 33, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road in Jagubazar Phulpatty, Calcutta, which is under family dispute. Her husband Naranarayan Haralalka has disputed 1/4th share in 36, Brabourne Road, Calcutta which is a commercial area and the building is fully tenanted. She resides at 118B, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Calcutta which belongs to her husband's cousin brother Thakur Prasad Haralalka, as a licensee, and the owner of the premises has asked her to vacate the premises within a reasonable time. In such circumstances, her stay in the said premises is beneath her dignity and self-respect. She has no other reasonably suitable accommodation except the disputed premises which she reasonably requires for her own use and occupation. By a notice dated October 27, 1983 she determined the tenancy of the defendant and called upon it to vacate the flat on the expiry of December, 1983, but the notice came back with the postal remark "Refused". The mesne profits for wrongful occupation of the flat may be reasonably assessed at Rs.500/- per diem. As the defendant failed to comply with the terms of the said notice, hence the suit.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement inter alia denying the material allegations of the plaint and contending that it had been and still is a tenant since 1979 under Smt. Sangeeta Devi Haralalka who acquired the flat. Tenancy was attorned in her favour and ever since she has been and still continues to be the landlady of the defendant. The said Sangeeta Devi Haralalka refused to accept rents for October to December, 1980. The defendant continued to tender rents, and sometimes she accepted cheques but granted no receipt. She insisted upon enhancing the rent to Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and on the pretext of negotiation she continued to avoid granting receipt. In August, 1982 the defendant insisted upon her for accepting rent, but she refused, for which the rent was deposited with the Rent Controller from August 1982. She again approached the defendant for settlement with a request not to deposit the rent but went on postponing the settlement month by month. Sangeeta Devi failed to pay ever since April, 1980 to the Russel Apartment Society, the agency responsible for managing and maintaining the said premises, the maintenance service charges of Rs.250/- per month in order to force the said Society to cut off the essential supplies to the said flat so that the defendant may be forced to agree to the illegal demand of increase of rent. After the said flat was transferred to Sangeeta Devi, the same fell into despair for want of repair and maintenance as she failed to pay the management and repair charges. In March, 1980 the electricity and water supply was stopped to the flat, for which the defendant by its letter dated 20.03.80 informed Sangeeta Devi that if she failed to pay maintenance and ensure resumption of water and electricity supply to the flat, the defendant would pay the same and deduct the same from the monthly rent. In response, M/s. B. M. Bagaria & Co., Advocates for Sita Devi, informed the Advocate of the Russel Apartment Society through a letter dated 25,04.80 about no objection to the payment of maintenance charges but the Society should also agree to discharge its obligations and responsibilities in the matter of maintaining the flat. The Society by letter dated 01.11.80 to Smt. Sita Devi demanded the due maintenance charges from May, 1980 with a threat to disconnect electricity to the flat. On the request of the defendant by letter dated 12.11.80 the landlady consented to the paying of maintenance charges from May, 1980 by the defendant and deduction of the said amount from the rent. The defendant has accordingly been paying the maintenance charges which was increased to Rs. 300/- per month from January, 1982 to the Society on behalf of the landlady and thus paid a total sum of Rs. 12,800/- till February, 1984. The defendant was never aware about the alleged surrender of lease by Smt. Sita Devi to the plaintiff. No notice was ever served upon the defendant nor the alleged notice is legal and valid nor the plaintiff has any locus standi to determine the tenancy of the defendant. That the plaintiff is a licensee in respect of premises No. 118B, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road and she has been asked by her husband's cousin brother to vacate the said premises is concocted. Hence, the suit merits dismissal.;