Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 156
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Sova Rani Seal - Appellant
Versus
Dilip Kumar Samanta And Another - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 145 of 2002
Decided On : 28-02-2020
Aniruddha Chatterjee, Advocate, Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay, Advocate, Arjun Samanta, Advocate, Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, Advocate, Sugata Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
Validity of ejectment notice and joint tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act.
Headnote:
Ejectment - Transfer of Property Act - Section 106 - 138 - 113 - The court affirmed the judgment and decree of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal and directing the defendant to vacate the property within 60 days. The court found that the landlord had properly served the ejectment notice and that the defendant's claim of joint tenancy with her son was not valid.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, a tenant, alleging non-payment of rent and their need for the property for business purposes. The defendant contested the suit, claiming joint tenancy with her son and challenging the validity of the ejectment notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's claim of joint tenancy was not valid and that the ejectment notice was properly served, affirming the lower courts' judgment and directing the defendant to vacate the property within 60 days.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the ejectment notice, the existence of joint tenancy, and the sufficiency of the notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's claim of joint tenancy was not valid, as the son was a minor at the time of the alleged induction, and the existence of a few rent receipts in his name did not create joint tenancy rights. The court also found that the ejectment notice was properly served and valid.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' judgment and directing the defendant to vacate the property within 60 days.
JUDGMENT
Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The judgment and decree dated 17th May, 2001 passed in Title Appeal No.138 of 1998 by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Howrah affirming the judgment and decree dated 29th June, 1998 passed in Title Suit No.85 of 1993 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Howrah is assailed in the instant appeal by the defendants of the original suit.
2. The respondents as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.85 of 1993 praying for eviction of the defendant/appellant and mesne profits alleging, inter alia, that the appellant was a tenant governed under the Transfer of Property Act in respect of a suit shop room situated at Shostitala, Sanpuipara within P.S Bali in the district of Howrah under one Smt. Sitala Patra and others. The plaintiffs/respondents became the owners of the suit property by a deed of sale dated 13th August, 1986 and became the owners of the property in suit including the suit shop room. The defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit shop room at a rental of Rs.80/- according to the Bengali calendar month. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants were habitual defaulters in payment of rent. The plaintiffs reasonably require the suit shop room for their business and also to make pucca construction thereon which will augment the plaintiff's income. Therefore, the plaintiffs sent a notice of ejectment dated 17th May, 1993 under registered post with acknowledgement due. The defendant received the said notice on 24th May, 1993 by putting her signature on the postal AD card. By the said notice the tenancy of the defendant was terminated on the expiry of the last day of the month of Jaistha 1400 BS and she was requested to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property with the expiry of the last day of Jaista 1400 BS. In spite of receipt of the said notice, the defendant failed and neglected to vacate the suit shop room. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the said suit.
3. The defendants contested the said suit by filing written statement wherein she denied entire allegation made out against her by the plaintiffs. Specific case of the defendant is that she and her son Pradip Kr. Sil were jointly inducted by one Usha Rani Samanta in respect of the suit shop room. Usha Rani Samanta was the landlady of the said joint tenants, viz, the defendant and her son. She used to receive rent from both the defendant and her son. However the suit was filed without impleading Pradip Kumar Sil, his tenancy was also not determined by an ejectment notice. Therefore, the suit is bad for defect of parties. It is further pleaded by the defendants/appellants that initially she and her son was inducted in respect of the suit shop room at a monthly rental of Rs.40/-. Subsequently, it was gradually enhanced to Rs.80/-, Usha Rani Samanta used to collect rent through her agent. Sometimes in the year 1989 Usha Rani started to issue rent receipt only in the name of the defendant. The defendants raised objection at that time Usha Rani assured that the defendant and her son Pradip Kumar Sil were joint tenants and their status as joint tenants would not be jeopardized despite granting rent receipt in the name of Sobha Rani alone. The defendant denied existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and her. The defendant also challenged the legality, validity and sufficiency of the ejectment notice. It was contended that the notice was not served to her in accordance with the provision of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is contended that no notice was ever tendered to the defendant at her residence and accordingly the notice is illegal and invalid.
4. The learned trial judge framed as many as eight issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The parties led evidence and on the basis of evidence on record the learned trial judge decreed the suit on contest.
5. Against the said judgment and decree
