Nirendra Krishna Mitra, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who are the tenants in respect of premises No. 91, Deb Lane, P.S. Entally, Calcutta-700014 have obtained the present rule against the opposite party against the decision arrived at by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 332 of 1975 disposing of the petitioners' application under section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by order No. 71 dated November 21, 1934.
(2.) The case of the petitioners as made in the present rule, inter alia, is that one Smt. Pravabati Ghosh, since deceased, was the owner of premises No. 91. Deb Lane, P.S. Entally, Calcutta-700 014, who inducted Sri Debi Prosad Sarkar, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as a monthly tenant in respect of a portion of the said premises No. 91, Deb Lane at a rental of Rs. 25/- per month, in the year 1942 which was subsequently increased to Rs. 30/-, payable according to the English Calendar. On the death of the said Smt. Pravabati Ghosh, her only heir and daughter Smt. Ashalata Chowdhury (nee Ghosh) inherited the suit premises and became the landlady of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest in respect of the said tenancy, which was inherited by The petitioners on the death of their predecessor-in-interest Sri Debi Prosad Sarkar, the original tenant. As the said Smt. Ashalata Chowdhury refused to accept rent from the petitioners for the month of March, 1974 on the pretext that by way of a family settlement or partition, the suit premises was allotted to the opposite party, who thus became their landlord, the petitioners started depositing rent with the Rent Controller. Subsequently, in the month of ( ) 1975, the opposite party as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 332 of 1975 in the 3rd Court of the learned Munsif at Sealdah against the petitioners for their eviction from the suit premises, inter alia, on the grounds of reasonable requirement and building and rebuilding. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, denying and disputing of the relationship landlord and tenant between the parties and also challenged the alleged Deed of Partition-cum-Family Settlement, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff-opposite party had not acquired any right, title, interest of share in the suit premises by virtue of the said deed and the same was not binding upon the petitioners. The learned Munsif, however, by his order No. 71 dated 21st November, 1984 disposed of the said application under section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 holding, inter alia, that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the opposite party and directed the parties to file their respective statements of accounts regarding arrears of rents within the stipulated period. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have come up in revision in this Hon'ble Court and obtained the present Rule.
(3.) It is contended by Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Munsif had failed to construe or interpret and appreciate the legal effect of the alleged Deed of Partition-cum-Family Settlement (Exhibit-5) and had passed his order upon a misconstruction of the said document and that the learned Munsif also failed to consider that the opposite party had not acquired any title to the suit premises by virtue of, the alleged Partition-cum-Family Settlement (Annexure-5) and because there was no real dispute between Smt. Ashalata and her spes successionis, namely, her sons and daughters including the plaintiff/opposite party, no transfer of any right, title or interest of Smt. Ashalata could be made under the law or under the alleged Deed which had been manufactured for creating a ground of eviction of the defendants from the suit premises. Mr. Ghosh has strenuously argued that the disputed Partition-cum-Settlement Deed did not fulfil the necessary and essential requirements of such a deed as there was no bona fide intention on the part of the parties of the alleged deed to make an arrangement of the family properties with a view to resolving any dispute between them once for all or to decide, settle or resolve their conflicting titles for ever in respect of their ancestral property in order to bring peace and harmony in the family and according to Mr. Ghosh, the said document was created with the ulterior motive to get a decree for eviction against the petitioners from the suit premises. Mr. Ghosh in support of his contention has referred to several decisions, namely, that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sahu Madho Das & ors. v. Mukand Ram & anr. (AIR 1955 SC 481) ; the Privy Council decision in the case of Mathukumalli Ramayya v. Uppalapati Lakshmayya (46 CWN 1008 PC) and a Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kasturchand Chootmal v. Kapurchand Kewalchand (AIR 1975 MP 136) .;