Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the elarned Advocates for the parties. The Second Appeal arose assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 213 of 2000 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 158 of 1991 as filed by the Defendants/tenants/Appellants.
(2.) At the time of admission of this appeal uner Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Division Bench framed the substantial questions of law involved for adjudication identifying the grounds No. I and v/s. and additional ground for which leave was granted to add. Grounds No. I, v/s. and added ground read to this effect: I) For that both the Courts below erred in law and in fact in not holding that the suit is not maintainable in law inasmuch as there was a separate tenancy since the date of induction. V) For that the Courts below erred in law and instead in holding that the Defendant No. 1 was actual tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 3000/ - (Rupees three thousand) per month and as such there is a single tenancy but not a separate tenancy. But both courts should have held on perusing the evidence of the parties that separate rent receipt was granted in the name of both the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the date of induction, as such these should be separate tenancy but not one. XXIII) For that the alleged agreement for tenancy is Palpably bad in law.
(3.) The Title Suit praying for recovery of khas possession and mesne profit was filed by the Plaintiff/ landlord alleging, inter alia, that the entire premises being a two storied building, save and except mezzanine floor and the terrace, was under the tenancy right of Defendant No. 1 following an agreement of such tenancy entered into by and between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 on 27.5.1985 specifying the terms of tenancy with a condition of deposit of Rs. 9,000/ - as security. After the Defendant No. 1 was inducted as tenant, he approached to split up the rental by two rent receipts namely Rs. 2000/ - and Rs. 1000/ - in the names of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, which for Income Tax purpose, which the Plaintiff on good faith greed. The Defendant No. 2 is son of Defendant No. 1. the rent receipts were -granted and were isued in respect of the entire suit premises only by splitting up. the rental in the names of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The Defendants/tenants defaulted to pay the rental and the Plaintiff also had the need of the suit premises and accordingly, an eviction suit was filed on the ground of default of payment of rent as well as reasonable requirement of the premises.;