R.Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the decree passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 1661 of 1965 in favour of the plaintiff B. M. Singh & Son, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its office at No. 1, Crooked Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the firm). The defendant is Rolls Print Co. (P.) Ltd., a limited company under the Companies Act (hereinafter described as the Company). The plaintiff is the owner of the premises No. 1. Crooked Lane, Calcutta of which the suit premises we are concerned with is a part.
(2.) The plaintiff filed several suits against different tenants occupying the premises No. 1, Crooked Lane. Calcutta. With regard to the present suit the plaintiff's allegation is that the defendant was a monthly tenant under the firm in respect of the suit premises at a rental of Rs. 102/- payable according to English Calendar month. The plaintiff, according to the allegation made in the plaint, requires the premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding, for use and occupation and also for accommodation of its business. The plaintiff determined the tenancy by a notice calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the last day of July, 1965. In spite of the notice duly served upon the defendant, it did not comply with the same and hence the present suit was filed.
(3.) The defendant filed a written statement. It was alleged that the suit was hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, that the notice to quit was illegal, insufficient and void, that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for building or rebuilding purposes or for their own requirement and occupation as alleged, that the plaintiff's accommodation at its disposal was more than sufficient and that the defendant had their machineries installed in the suit premises and had been running manufacturing business there.;