RAM GOPAL AGARWALLA Vs. DINESH CHANDRA NANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS

(2.) Ram Gopal Agarwalla did not vacate despite notice resulting in filing of the eviction suit being Title Suit No.1591 of 1981 by Nandys being the new owners. During the pendency of the said suit Gour Chandra Nandy died leaving his surviving heirs being the plaintiff no.1(a), (b) and (c). Ram Gopal Agarwalla contested the suit by filing written statement. He claimed holding over as a tenant having protection under the said Act of 1956. He also took the plea of defect in the service of notice.

(3.) The plaintiff proved the Deed of Lease executed by Gouri Sankar Dey in favour of Ram Gopal Agarwalla. The Deeds of Conveyance executed by the heirs of Gouri Sankar Dey in favour of Nandys and the ejectment notice served upon Ram Gopal Agarwalla including the postal acknowledgment. The defendant, on the other hand, executed rent receipts issued by Subh Karan Agarwalla, electric bill in the name of Ram Gopal Agarwalla and birth certificate certifying birth of a female baby by Santi Benia, wife of Ram Gopal Agarwalla, residing at 55, B. K. Paul Avenue, Calcutta. Dinesh Chandra Nandy, plaintiff no.3, deposed as P.W. 1 asserting that the defendant paid rent upto Baisakh 1388 B.S. He also proved the sale documents. According to him, the notice was duly served as would appear from the acknowledgment. He also deposed that the security deposit for two months was adjusted against Jaistha and Ashar being the last two months rent. Ram Gopal Agarwalla examined himself as D.W. 1. He denied of any document being prepared for his stay at the said premises. He contended that one Subh Karan Agarwalla was a tenant under the plaintiffs and he was sub-tenant under him. He subsequently changed his version and admitted his relationship with Gouri Sankar Dey and contended that he became a direct tenant under Gouri Sankar Dey at the rate of Rs.135 per month. He also admitted execution of the Deed of Lease. He, however, asserted that it was not acted upon. He also deposed that since Jaistha 1388 B.S. he had been depositing rent with the rent controller. However, up till January, 1956, he paid rent to Subh Karan Agarwalla. He, however, could not justify the existence of Subh Karan Agarwalla.