The statutory exception in Section 109 of the T.P. Act enables an assignee of a part of the reversion to exercise all the rights of the landlord. The court also determined that the notice terminating the tenancy, as stated in the plaint, constituted valid notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J. - This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Balasore in R.F.A. No.26/18 of 2005-04. By the said judgment and decree the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Balasore in Title Suit No.810 of 1994 in decreeing the suit for eviction of the appellants. However, in so far as the decree for payment of arrear house rent by the appellants as against the trial court's computation of the period from October, 1991 to August, 1994 for said payment having been set aside the arrear house rent is directed to be paid by the appellants from May, 1994 onwards.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the court below.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that Sudhir Chandra Dey and Anil Chandra Dey, the two brothers are the original owners of the suit land with a row of pucca shop rooms consisting of 14 blocks each having two rooms standing over it. They had equal interest over the said land and the houses standing over it. They had let out those 14 blocks of rooms to different tenants on monthly rent basis. The plaintiff and proforma defendant nos.5 to 10 are the successors-in-interest of Sudhir Chandra Dey whereas the defendant nos.11 to 16 are the successors-in-interest of Anil Chandra Dey. Anil died on 04.12.1960 and Sudhir died on 18.10.1963. It is stated that in the year 1977, there was an amicable partition amongst the successors of Anil and Sunil, i.e., the defendant nos.11 to 16 on one hand and the plaintiff with defendant nos.5 to 10 on the other. In the said partition suit houses consisting of block nos.1 to 7 were allotted to the plaintiff and defendant nos.5 to 10 whereas those under block nos. 8 to 14 were allotted to the defendant nos.11 to 16. It is also stated that subsequent thereto there has been amicable division amongst the plaintiff and defendant nos.5 to 10 and the suit block no.7 was allotted to the plaintiff in his share and thus he became the absolute owner of the said block. He was also collecting rent from the tenants, i.e., defendant nos.1 to 4 who remained in occupation of the rooms under block no.7 being the legal heirs of the original tenant Debendranath Dutta, their father. It is said that Debendranath was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit plot on a monthly rent of Rs.40/- It is alleged that the defendant nos.1 to 4 wilfully defaulted in making the payment of the house rent from the month of October, 1991 onwards. It is also stated that the plaintiff's wife being an educated lady who was then unemployed being desirous to run a beauty parlour in the room under that suit block no.7, there was the requirement for those rooms to be used for the purpose. Therefore, the plaintiff had requested the defendant nos.1 to 4 several times to vacate the rooms under the suit plot on the payment of the arrear house rent. However, as that was not paid any heed to, notice was sent to them through his lawyer asking them to vacate the rooms under the suit block in their occupation as tenants and to pay the arrear house rent. No response being received after service of the said notice, the suit was filed.

4. The defendant nos.1 to 4 while traversing the plaint averments have gone to deny the factum of partition said to have taken place amongst the successors of Anil and Sudhir in the year 1977, as also the subsequent partition amongst the successors of Sudhir and that these rooms under the suit block to have been allotted in the share of the plaintiff. Thus, they challenge the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the same has not been filed by all the legal heirs of both the branches in making the prayer for eviction. It is further pleaded that they were all along paying the