The court upheld that previous judgments established the landlord-tenant relationship, emphasizing adherence to procedural compliance for amendments in eviction suits.

JUDGMENT :

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

1. This second appeal challenges the judgement and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2006, on 16th September, 2017 by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Sealdah affirming thereby the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 390 of 1967.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, Chamuda Devei, as sebayet of deity Sri Sri Saktimoyee Kalimata filed the suit for eviction of the defendants who are the sons and daughters of Dulal Ch. Biswas, since deceased. It is contended that premises no. 20/H/5, Pottary Road belongs to the deity Sri Sri Iswar Saktimoyee Kalimata, nearly 100 years ago one Gopal Ojha having acquired title over the property, dedicated the same to the deity.

4. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was inducted as tenant in respect of suit property at a monthly rental of Rs. 8/- per month payable according to English Calendar month. Since then the defendants have been possessing the property. They paid monthly rent regularly up to the month of August, 1962. Thereafter, the defendant with an ulterior motive and for wrongful gain, in collusion with some persons started denying the status of the sebayet; the defendants also stopped payment of rent.

5. One Suvendu Prasad Roy Chowdhury filed a suit being Title Suit No. 242 of 1963 before the learned Munsif, 3rd Court alleging, inter alia, that plaintiff had trespassed into the land and raised structure thereon. The plaintiff also filed a suit registered as Title Suit No. 255 of 1964 seeking declaration and injunction against the Roy Chowdhurys and against some of the tenants, including the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants who then joined hands with Roy Chowdhurys for some wrongful gain.

6. Both Title Suit No. 242 of 1963 and Title Suit No. 255 of 1964 were tried analogously. The suit filed by the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 255 of 1964 was decreed on contest while Title Suit No. 242 of 1963 filed by Suvendu Prasad Roy Chowdhury was dismissed on contest.

7. In Title Suit No. 255 of 1964 the status of Chamunda Devi was declared as sebayet of deity Sri Sri Saktimoyee Kalimata and defendants were declared to be monthly tenant under the plaintiff. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy in respect of suit property by serving the notice to quit dated 13th July, 1967 which was duly received by the defendant. He also gave a reply to that notice through his lawyer Sri N.P. Chaknabis. Despite termination of tenancy the defendant failed to act in terms of the notice. Hence the suit.

8. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff incorporated an amendment and sought for decree on the ground of reasonable requirement as well.

9. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and additional written statement, denying all material averments made by the plaintiff. It is categorically stated that the defendant was never inducted as monthly tenant in the suit property at a rental of Rs. 8/- per month. The plaintiff had no locus standi to induct any tenant in the suit property. The defendant had no reason to pay rent to the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the defendant that the entire premises was owned by Baroda Prasad Roy Ch