D.C. Chakraborty, J. - (1.) In this Rule the properiety of an order dismissing a miscellaneous appeal arising out of an order made by the learned Munsif on an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was challenged.
(2.) The facts, stated succinctly and relevant for the purposes of this case, are as follows:- The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for eviction against the respondent No. 2 and the present petitioner who figured respectively as defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. The defendant No 1 was a tenant under the plaintiff in suit premises and he later brought in defendant no. 2 as a sub-tenant without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 made a default in payment of rent since September, 1967. The plaintiff also reasonably required the suit premises for occupation by her and the members of her family. She also wanted to make necessary additions and alterations in the suit premises. Accordingly, she served both defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 with a notice under section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. As the defendants failed to comply with the requisition contained in the notice the present suit was brought by the plaintiff.
(3.) The defendant no. 1 who alone contested the suit denied the truth of the material allegations contained in the plaint and his case, stated briefly, is that the premises in question were not reasonably required by the plaintiff for the occupation by her and the members of her family, that he has been tenant in respect of the suit premises since 1964 and that after the death of one Tinkori who was the original owner of the suit premises his heirs separately asked the defendant not to pay rent to any one of the heirs and that accordingly no rent was collected by them.;