S.Narayan, J. - (1.) This is a second appeal preferred by the defendants/ appellants, being the Road Transport Corporation, a partnership firm and the Branch Manager of the said Corporation, who are aggrieved of the judgment dated March 31, 1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, third court, Burdwan, in Title Appeal No. 35 of 1995, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and the decree of Title Suit No. 150 of 1980 passed by the trial court i.e. the Munsif Second Court, Burdwan, in favour of the plaintiff / respondent was affirmed. The suit was for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement thereof by the respondent as also on account of default in payment of rent.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff/respondent in brief is that he being the sole owner of the suit premises inducted the defendant-appellant No. 1 therein as his tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 400 payable according to the English calender month for the purpose of using it as residential quarter-cum branch office of the defendant corporation. The defendants, however, changed the mode of user of the premises and converted It into a godown-cum store house of the Corporation. The Corporation, during the course of wrong handling and storing of its heavy consignments in the suit premises, damaged the floor of the premises and rendered it unfit for use and occupation. It was further contended that the plaintiff/ respondent had no other house of his own besides the suit premises at Burdwan. For the present, he was residing in his mother's house under her grant and licence and, now, he has been asked by her to quit and vacate the said house and, accordingly, he had decided to make necessary addition and alteration in the suit premises for using it as his residential quarter as well as his business place. He had sufficient means to defray the expanses in carrying out the improvements in the suit premises. There was also default in payment of rent since the month of November, 1979. The plaintiff/respondent has further asserted that he served the required notice upon the defendants by registered post with A/D requesting the defendants to quit and vacate the suit premises on expiry to the month of December, 1979. Both the defendants received the notice and, thereupon, the defendant No.l sent a reply on 29.11.1979 to the plaintiff in response to the notice. Since the defendants failed even thereafter to comply with the Notice of ejectment and did not choose to vacate the suit premises, there was the necessity for the suit.
(3.) The suit was contested by both the defendants/appellants, who, of course, filed separate written statements but with almost the same contention. It was contended on their behalf that the suit was not maintainable in the form as presented and that the suit was also bad for want of legal, valid and sufficient Notice under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The suit was said to be bad also for defect of parties. It was asserted that the defendant No.l, being the Road Transport Corporation was not a company rather it was a partnership firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, and that Shri G.D. Goyel was one of the partners and not the Director or the Managing Director of the Corporation. The suit premises was earlier let out to the Corporation by the mother of the plaintiff/respondent but some time later, when the suit premises came into the khas possession of the plaintiff/respondent, it was let out to the same defendant at a monthly rental of Rs. 400 in the year 1973 for being used as its office-cum-godown-cum Manager's quarters. The defendants have denied the allegation of change in the mode of user of the premises as also of any damage caused to the floor thereof. The very purpose of the user of the suit premises was mostly for godown and it was not at all suitable for residential purpose of the plaintiff/respondent. The defendants/appellants also denied default in payment of rent of the premises. The story of plaintiffs requirement of the suit premises was said to be not bona fide or genuine one.;