A decree in an ejectment suit can be assigned under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 6, and the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, Section 13, do not bar such assignment. The transferee of the decree can execute the decree under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. THIS appeal from Original Decree is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th July 1982, passed in Ejectment Suit. No. 992 of 1 973 by Shri A. N. Basu, learned Judge, 10th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, whereby the suit for ejectment, as instituted by the plaintiff/ respondent on 13th August 1973, for recovery of the premises in suit viz. 65/1a, College Street, P. S. Amherst Street, Calcutta- 12 and for recovery of possession of the same, on the ground of default and subletting, was decreed on contest with costs and it was directed that the defendant/appellant should vacate the said premises within 30 days from the date of the determination" and deliver vacant possession therof to the plaintiff/respondent and in default, the plaintiff/respondent would be at liberty to recover khas possession of the premises in suit, by executing the decree. It should also be noted that by the judgment and decree leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, as prayed for, was given to the plaintiff / respondent, for recovery of arrears of rent and means profit by a separate suit.

2. ADMITTEDLY the plaintiff respondent was the owner of the premises in suit and the defendant appellant was the tenant under her for the premises in question, on a rental of Rs. 115/-per month, payable according to English calendar month. It was alleged that the defendant appellant was a habitual defaulter and he had failed and neglected to pay rent since January 1973. Apart from alleging that the said defendant appellant, without the permission and consent of the plaintiff respondent even after coming into force of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, transferred, assigned or sublet the premises in suit to several persons and that, being the position, the defendant / appellant, according to plaintiff respondent, had rendered himself disentitled to the benefit of protection against the eviction under that Act.

It was also stated in the plaint that by a combined notice dated 9th April 1973, the defendant/appellant's tenancy in respect of the premises in suit, was terminated on the expiry of the 1st day of May 1 973 and that notice which was sent by registered post, was duly received by the defendant/appellant. But, inspite of such receipt, he has failed, and neglected to comply with the requisitions as made therein.

3. BY his written statement dated 11th June 1975, the defendant/appellant claimed the suit in question, to be not maintainable legally, apart from claiming that the same was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the plaintiff/respondent had no cause of action for the suit. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant/appellant and the plaintiff/respondent was also denied and disputed. It was claimed that the suit was barred on the application of the principles of estoppel and acquiescence or principles analogous thereto and in any event, the plaintiff/respondent had waived her right to maintain the same. It was also claimed that the plaintiff/respondent had suppressed the material facts in her plaint and that apart, the legality, validity and sufficiency of the notice to quit dated 9th April 1973 (Ext. 1) was denied. The defendant/appellant has also denied the allegation that he had sublet the premises as alleged. His categorical case was that he was not a defaulter.

4. ON the basis of the pleadings as mentioned above, the issues which were framed for determination, are quoted hereunder:-

1. Is there relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant ?

2. Is the defendant a defaulter in payment of rent since january 1973 ?

3. Has the defendant without the previous consent in writing of the plaintiff landlady transferred, assigned or sublet the whole or part of the suit premises ?

4. Has the notice to quit been served upon the defendant ? if so, is the said notice legal, valid and sufficient

5. To what relief or reliefs if any is the plaintiff entitled ?

The learn