J.N.SARMA
Abdul Matin Choudhury and Anothers – Appellant
Versus
Nityananda Dutta Banik – Respondent
(i) That the tenant was default in payment of rent for the month of Srabana. Bhadra and Aswin 1388 BS.
(ii) That the house in question is required bona fide for the purpose of construction and expansion of the business of the plaintiffs.
2. The defendant filed a written statement denying both the allegations. The learned Munsiff by judgment dated 2.5.89 decreed the suit holding inter alia as follows :
(i) That the agreed date of payment of rent is admittedly within 7 days of the Bengali month next following the month of tenancy.
(ii) That the rent was not paid in accordance with the law and as such the defendant is a defaulter.
(iii) It was also found that it was not established that the rent was refused by the landlord and in that connection, the trial Court found that the money was sent by money order was not established.
(iv) It was found that the house in question is required bona fide by the plaintiffs.
3. There was an appeal being Title Appeal No.46 of 1989 be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.