SUKLA CHOUDHURY Vs. MANJOLYN TWEEDIE
LAWS(CAL)-1976-5-7
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 07,1976

SUKLA CHOUDHURY Appellant
VERSUS
MANJOLYN TWEEDIE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RAFIUDDIN NURUDDIN MUSALMAN VS. ABDUYL KARIM ABDUL REHEMAN [LAWS(BOM)-2005-8-123] [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF GOVERNORS ST THOMAS SCHOOL VS. A K GEORGE [LAWS(CAL)-1984-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. TANUSREE ART PRINTERS VS. RABINDRA NATH PAL [LAWS(CAL)-2000-5-69] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ajay K.Basu, J. - (1.)This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Miss. Sukla Choudhury against the defendants for ejectment and consequential reliefs. According to the plaintiff, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are her tenants and defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are trespassers.
(2.)The main allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, being two young girls, were her tenants in respect of the portion of premises No. 5, Kyd Street and these two girls were of easy virtues and as such committed various acts of nuisance and immorality and under Sub-sections (m), (n) and (o) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, (sic) their tenancy has been forfeited and they should be ejected. Apart from that, it is also alleged that the defendants did not pay rent and are defaulters. According to the plaintiff, the defendants Nos. 3. 4 and 5 are trespassers who have trespassed into the said premises and likewise they should be ejected.
(3.)The main defence of the defendants is that the defendant No. 3, the alleged trespasser, who is the mother of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, is the real tenant and there is no truth in the allegations against them as alleged by the plaintiff and according to the defendant No. 3, the plaintiff improperly and illegally refused to accept rent and as such rents were deposited with the Rent Controller. The other defence, of course, was legal defence, taken by the defendants' counsel Mr. John about the jurisdiction of this court and misjoinder of parties.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.