S.P. Talukdar, J. - (1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th March, 2006 passed by learned 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Appeal No. 93 of 2005 - thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2005 passed by the learned Trial Court in Ejectment Suit No. 2723 of 2000. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows: Respondents, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant claiming therein that the defendant was a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 140/ - according to English Calendar Month. The property was purchased by the plaintiffs by virtue of a registered Kobala dated 16.8.1996 and the defendant accepted the plaintiffs as his landlords by payment and acceptance of rent. Plaintiffs claimed that he had sublet or transferred or parted with possession of the suit premises to Amit Mazumdar and Ashish Mazumdar without the consent of the plaintiffs and he himself shifted to ownership flat at Uttara Apartment at No. 13, Broad Street, Calcutta where he had been residing permanently. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed and neglected to pay rent on and from the month of January, 1998 and as such, was a defaulter in payment of rent in respect of the suit premises. Plaintiffs further claimed that the suit premises is required for their own use and occupation as they have no other alternative suitable accommodation. Plaintiffs have been permanently residing at a rented premises situated at No. 26/1, Ram Mohan Saha Lane, Calcutta. They are in possession of two rooms, one kitchen with common bath and privy.
(2.) The defendant was served with a notice of ejectment, which was accepted and replied to. The defendant, however, did not bother to vacate the premises thereby compelling the plaintiffs to file the suit for ejectment.
(3.) The said case was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement, inter alia, denying all the material allegations made in the plaint. Defendant denied to have sublet the suit property or any part of it to Amit Mazumdar and Ashish Mazumdar. Defendant denied to have defaulted in payment of rent and disputed that the plaintiffs required the suit premises for their own use and occupation. Defendant specifically claimed that Amit Mazumdar and Ashish Mazumdar are his brothers and they used to live in the same mess as members for want of accommodation. Defendant temporarily took shelter at Uttara Apartment being No. 13, Broad Street, Calcutta. It was further claimed by the defendant that he along with his said two brothers are living in both the premises at No. 28A, Ram Mohan Saha Lane and Uttara Apartment at No. 13, Broad Street, Calcutta. Defendant further denied proper service of a legal, valid and sufficient notice of ejectment upon him.;