SATYENDRA NATH ROY DECEASED SUBSTITUTED Vs. CHHABI RANI MUNDRA
LAWS(CAL)-1996-7-30
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 17,1996

SATYENDRA NATH ROY (DECEASED) SUBSTITUTED, ARUNA ROY Appellant
VERSUS
CHHABI RANI MUNDRA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

UPENDRA CHANDRA GHOSH VS. SOVA RANI GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-142] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.K.Dutta, J. - (1.)-This second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29th March, 1993 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 170 of 1989 before him, affirming the agreement and Decree dated 31st July, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court at Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 132 of 1986 before him on a grounds made out in the Memorandum of Appeal.
(2.)The relevant Suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent Chhabi Rani Mundra for eviction of the Defendant-Appellant, Satyendra Nath Roy, since deceased, who has been substituted by his legal heirs and representatives on his demise during the pendency of this Appeal, from the suit premises, as described and detailed in the Schedule to the Plaint, on ground of reasonable requirement, amongst others. It is contended by the Plaintiff Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) that she became the owner of the suit premises under a Deed of Settlement dated 8th October, 1958 executed by her grand mother Niva Rani Devi (hereinafter referred to as Niva Rani) on her death on 22nd December, 1978. By a letter of Attornment to the Defendant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Defendant), she (Plaintiff) had requested him to pay rent to her in respect of the suit premises where he was a tenant under the said Niva Rant. The Plaintiff is stated to be residing to a tenanted accommodation with her family at 5/1, Dum Dum Road, Calcutta-30, which is insufficient to meet her requirement. Hence the relevant suit for recovery of possession of the Suit premises after evicting the Defendant therefrom on the ground of reasonable requirement on the plea taken in the Plaint, after determining the tenancy of the defendant by a Notice to quit dated 14-4-1983, duly served and received by him on 19-4-1983.
(3.)The Trial Court, on trial, had found favour with the Plaintiffs case and had decreed the Suit. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant had preferred the First Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which as well had affirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court for the reasons recorded in the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29th March. 1993.
;


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