Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This first appeal is at the instance of defendants in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 29,1996 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 1185 of 1975 thereby decreeing the aforesaid suit. The proceeding has a chequered career.
(2.) The respondent herein filed the aforesaid Ejectment Suit No. 1185 of 1975 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for eviction of the appellants by treating them as tenants governed under the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting and the case made out by the respondent was as follows : Premises No.1, Keshab Chandra Sen Street belonged to one Sisir Kumar Dawn. After the death of said Sisir Kumar Dawn the property devolved upon his widow, Smt. Angurbala and his only son, Samir.
(3.) The appellants were tenants under them in respect of a portion of the northern side of the said premises consisting of five rooms which were later converted into seven rooms as described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The tenancy was held at a monthly rental of Rs. 70/- according to English calendar. By a registered deed of conveyance dated June 26, 1974, the aforesaid heirs of Sisir Kumar Dawn sold their undivided half share in the said property to Smt. Pachha Debi, the grandmother of the plaintiff and the plaintiff for valuable consideration. By another registered deed of conveyance executed on the same day, the aforesaid heirs of Sisir Kumar Dawn transferred the remaining undivided half share in the said premises No.1, Keshab Chandra Sen Street to Smt. Gayatri Debi for valuable consideration. Smt. Gayatri Debi is the mother of the plaintiff. Ultimately by a registered deed of partition dated August 11, 1974 executed by the co-sharers, the said premises were mutually partitioned among them and under the terms of the said partition, the back portion being the northern portion of the said premises was allotted to the plaintiff who became absolute owner thereof. The tenancy of the' defendants had fallen exclusively in the portion allotted to the plaintiff. The appellants were duly informed of the said transfer and they became monthly tenant under the respondent in respect of the said premises at monthly rental of Rs. 70/-. It was further alleged that the appellants were defaulters in payment of rent and they neglected to pay rent from August, 1974, the date the respondent became exclusive owner. It was further alleged that the appellants were also guilty of sub-letting and were thus liable to be evicted.;