ARUN SEKHAT BANERJEE Vs. PRATIMA RAKSHIT
LAWS(CAL)-1996-10-23
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 14,1996

Arun Sekhat Banerjee Appellant
VERSUS
Pratima Rakshit Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HIMANSHU BIKAS DAS V. RAMINDRA MOHAN DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ILLIYAS V. SYED ALI NAWAB AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RAM PARKASH SAROJ V. MOHINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S N SUDALAIMUTHU CHETTIAR VS. PALANIYANDAVAN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR DUTTA, J. - (1.)THIS Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree of dismissal dated 20th December, 1991 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court of 24 - Parganas (South) at Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 89 of 1991 before him, reversing the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Munsif, 2nd Additional Court at Alipore, on 5th January, 1991 in Title Suit No. 106 of 1988 before him.
(2.)THE Plaintiff -Landlord -Owner of the suit premises (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) had filed the relevant suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises, described and detailed in the schedule to the plaint, after evicting the DefendantTenant -Respondent (hereinafter referred to as defendant) therefrom on the grounds made out therein. It is contended by the plaintiff that the Defendant was a tenant under him in respect of the suit room at a monthly rental of Rs. 80/ - only, payable according to English Calendar month. The Defendant had defaulted in payment of rents in respect thereof since the month of May, 1982. The plaintiff further contends that he reasonably requires the suit premises, the room in suit, for his own use and occupation and for use and occupation by the members of his family in view of the composition of his family his requirement, and the accommodation he is presently having in the building in question. It is also alleged that the defendant had caused nuisance and annoyance to him. He had, accordingly, determined the tenancy of the Defendant calling upon her to vacate the suit premises in terms of the eviction notice served upon her. The Defendants having failed and neglected to vacate the suit premises in terms thereof, he has been constrained to file the Suit for her eviction therefrom on the aforesaid grounds in"terms of the pleas taken in the plaint.
(3.)THE Defendant had contested the suit denying the allegations made in the plaint and contending, inter -alia, that her tenancy presently consists of not only of the room -in -suit but also a space in the back portion of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/ - only. The plaintiffs case of default in payment of rent by her, his reasonable requirement, and nuisance and annoyance had also been denied by the Defendants.
The Learned Munsif, on trial, had decreed the suit only on the ground of default on the part of the Defendant in paying rents in respect of the suit premises, discarding the plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement. On appeal and cross -appeal filed by both the parties there against, the Lower Appellate Court, by passing the impugned Judgement and Order, had allowed the Appeal filed by the Defendant -Tenant and had dismissed the cross -appeal filed by the plaintiff -Landlord against the finding of the Trial Court on his plea regarding reasonable requirement, for the reasons recorded therein. The Lower Appellate Court, while holding that the Ld. Munsif was not justified in decreeing the suit on the ground of default, had also decided the question of extent of tenancy and the rate of rent in respect thereof raised by the Defendant, not decided by the Ld. Munsif, for the reasons recorded by it in the impugned Judgment and Order. The Court below had held that the tenancy in question comprises the room - in -suit only at a monthly rental of Rs. 80/ - only, as contended by the plaintiff.

;


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