ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated May 08, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 41 of 2004, affirming the judgment and decree for eviction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Sealdah IN Title Suit No. 429 of 1996.
(2.) The facts relevant for deciding this second appeal are stated herein below.
(3.) The respondents filed the suit, being Title Suit No. 429 of 1996, against late Bhim Chandra Naskar (hereinafter referred to as "Bhim Chandra") claiming a decree for his eviction from the suit property, comprising one room, with veranda under tile shed at premises no. 3/H/17, Tarini Charan Ghosh Lane, P.S. Chitpore, Kolkata. It was the plaint case that the plaintiffs' predecessor Kanailal Maity, as the thika tenant, inducted Bhim Chandra a bharatia in respect of the suit property; after the demise of their predecessor and with the promulgation of the Calcutta Thika and other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1981"), the plaintiffs became the thika tenants of the suit property and the defendant continued to be a bharatia in respect of the suit property under them. In view of the provisions contained in Section 9 the Act of 1981 the plaintiffs, as the thika tenants claiming eviction of the defendant bharatia was governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"). The grounds urged by the plaintiffs for eviction of the defendant Bhim Chandra were, inter alia, that the latter was a defaulter in payment of rent, he was guilty for creating nuisance and annoyance at the suit property and that the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit property for their own use and occupation. The plaintiffs claimed that they filed the eviction suit after issuance of a notice dated June 08, 1996, under Section 13(6) of the Act of 1956 to Bhim Chandra and the latter contested the suit and filed his written statement. In his written statement, Bhim Chandra alleged that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property and the Government of West Bengal is the owner of the suit property. He, however, admitted to have been inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit property by Kanailal Maity and after his death the plaintiff no. 1, as the landlady collected the monthly rent for the suit property from him. Bhim Chandra further claimed that upto the month of July, 1992 he paid rent to the plaintiff no. 1 but from the month of August, 1992, the plaintiff no. 1 refused to accept the rent for the suit property from him. It was further alleged that since the plaintiff no. 1 refused to accept the rent tendered through money order, he deposited all rent for the suit property before the Rent Controller and after filing of the suit he had been depositing the rent for the suit property before the learned trial Court. Therefore, Bhim Chandra, as the defendant, denied to be the defaulter in payment of rent for the suit property. On consideration of the averments made by the plaintiffs and the defendant in their plaint and the written statement, respectively the learned trial Judge framed the following issues: 1. Is the suit maintainable either in law or in fact? 2. Is the notice to quit valid, proper, sufficient or duly served upon the defendant? 3. Is the defendant "defaulter" in payment of rent? 4. Is the defendant guilty for creating nuisance in the suit premises as alleged? 5. Have the plaintiffs any reasonable requirement of the suit premises? 6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get decree as prayed for?;