- (1.) This Civil Revision case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has arisen under the following circumstances: Petitioner Tirtha Nath Ghose held two thika tenancies under the opposite party, who is a shebait of two deities. One such holding bears premises No. 53/2, Shalimar Road of Howrah Municipality and another holding bears No. 53/3, Shalimar Road. The opposite party landlord instituted two proceedings under Section 5 of the Calcutta Thiha Tenancy Act for ejectment of the Petitioner on grounds which shall be mentioned and discussed later in my judgment. Both the applications were allowed on contest by the Munsif, 2nd Court, Howrah, exercising the function of a Controller. Appeals were preferred by the tenant, but they were dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, who heard them. The Petitioner has obtained the present Rule against that portion of the appellate order, which governs holding No. 53/2 and I am not concerned in the present Rule with the other holding.
(2.) Premises No. 53/2, Shalimar Road measures about three cottas and the tenant has built some structures on the land containing ten rooms. The landlord instituted the ejectment proceeding on grounds (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 3 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. These grounds respectively are (i) that the tenant was a defaulter, (ii) that the landlord required the land for building and developing and (iii) that the tenant had failed himself to use or occupy the holding for his own residential, manufacturing or business purposes for more than six consecutive months. The validity and bona fides of these grounds were challenged by the tenant but his objections were over-ruled both by the Controller and the Appellate Court. So the tenant has come up to this Court invoking the High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) Before dealing with that part of the case which rests on a consideration of some of the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, I must dispose of some of the general objections raised by Mr. Bagchi on behalf of the Tenant-Petitioner, which relate to the status of the tenant and to the validity of the notice of ejectment served upon him.;