BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of tenant-defendants in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 5, 1994 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 1066 of 1986 thereby passing a decree for eviction against the appellants on the grounds of reasonable requirement, violation of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property act and also on the ground of sub-letting.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit against the appellants alleging that the appellants were monthly tenants under her in respect of the suit property at the monthly rental of Rs. 80/- payable according to the English calendar month. According to the plaintiff, the defendants committed default in payment of rent, sublet the property in favour of one Raju Kapoor, and committed acts contrary to the provisions of clauses (m), (0) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. In addition to those grounds, the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for her own use and occupation.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the present appellants by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The specific defence of the appellants was that on or about 1950 one Ganesh prasad Khanna, the husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellant no. 2 took the tenancy in respect of entire suit premises No. 10/2, Vivekananda road from one Panchu Daw and others at a monthly rental of Rs. 35/- according to English calendar month. The said tenancy was taken for manufacturing hosiery goods and the business under the style Jan Kalyan Hosiery was being carried on at the suit premises. After the partition amongst the landlords, one Manindra Krishna Daw started collecting rent from Ganesh Prasad khanna as if he was sole landlord. The said rate of rent was enhanced from time to time and at present it was Rs. 80/-per month. According to the defendants, vide letter dated 25th February, 1972 issued by Rajendra Lal Dutta and Company, Solicitors purported to have been written under instructions from or on behalf of the plaintiff asserted that their client had purchased the suit property but no such intimation was received from Manindra Krishna daw. However, the defendants alleged, the plaintiff pressurized the said ganesh Prasad Khanna to pay to the plaintiff the rent in respect of the suit premises at the said rate of Rs. 80/- per month. The said Ganesh Prasad khanna died intestate on 23rd March, 1983 leaving behind him the defendants being the widow and the son respectively and also three unmarried daughters namely, Kiran, Soni and Sima who were residing with the deceased at the time of his death and all of them jointly inherited the said tenancy. Thereafter, kiran was given in marriage but she died issueless on 18th January, 1986 leaving her husband Om Narayan Sarin as her heir. According to the defendants, in view of the aforesaid fact, all the heirs of Ganesh Prasad khanna became the joint tenants in respect of the suit premises and in the absence of the other heirs than the two defendants, the suit was not maintainable. The allegations contained in the plaint as regards various grounds of eviction were also denied.

( 4 ) AT the time of hearing the plaintiff herself gave evidence in support of her plaint case and in addition to that, the Advocate Commissioner who inspected the premises appeared as witness No. 2 for the plaintiff.

( 5 ) CURIOUSLY enough, in spite of the aforesaid specific defence taken by defendants in their written statement as regards want of necessary party, the plaintiff did not utter a single sentence in examination-in-chief denying the defence case that Ganesh was the original tenant. In cross-examination, she, on the other hand, made the following admission:"ganesh Prasad Khanna was a tenant in the suit house during my purchase. I do not rememb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document