BINATA GHOSH Vs. AMIYA DASGUPTA
LAWS(CAL)-1996-9-29
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 12,1996

Binata Ghosh Appellant
VERSUS
AMIYA DASGUPTA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ATTAR SINGH SANGWAN VS. BANARSHI DASS [LAWS(P&H)-2007-11-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR DUTTA,J. - (1.)THIS Appeal is preferred by the Defendants-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as Defendants) against the Judgment and Decree dated 21st January, 1987 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Nadia, at Krishnagar in Title Appeal No. 299 of 1985, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30th November, 1985 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court, at Krishnagar in Title Suit No. 69 of 1985, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out in the Memo of Appeal.
(2.)THE Plaintiff-Respondent (hereafter referred to as Plaintiff) had filed the relevant Suit before the Court below against the Defendants for recovery of possession of the Suit premises, as described and detailed in the Schedule to the Plaint, after evicting the Defendants therefrom. It is contended by her that she is the exclusive owner of the Suit premises by virtue of a Partition Deed dated 4.1.1980 in the manner stated in the Plaint. The Defendants were her monthly tenants in respect of the Suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 60/-. payable according to English Calendar. She has sought for eviction of the Defendants therefrom on the ground that she reasonably require the Suit premises for her own use and occupation, that the Defendants had defaulted in payment of rent since June 1979, and that they have sub-let a room in the ground floor of the Suit premises to 'Nilhil Banga Prathamik Sikshak Samity' (hereinafter referred to as Samity), and the said Samity is carrying on their official work therein.
The Defendants had contested the Suit contending, inter alia, that the Plaintiff is an absentee from Krishnagar for a long time and that she does not reasonably requires the Suit premises for her own use and occupation, that they are not defaulters in payments of rents by the Plaintiff, and that they had neither sub-let the Suit premises, as alleged. They sought to contend that they had left the Suit premises temporarily in June 1981 and had returned back there in December 1981, and had found the Samity to be in occupation of a portion thereof. The legality and validity of the notice had also been challenged by them. It is thus contended by them that the Suit is liable to fail.

(3.)THE Trial Court, upon trial, had decreed the Suit only on the ground of sub-letting. So also the Lower Appellate Court by passing the impugned Judgment and Order for the reasons recorded therein.
;


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