JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.

The instant Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated August 30, 2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Tract, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum passed in Title Appeal No. 34 of 2001 reversing the Judgment and Decree dated November 29, 2000 in Title Suit No. 121 of 1995.

2. The original suit was filed, praying for recovery of possession with other reliefs. The plaint case, in nutshell, was that the Plaintiffs are owners and the landlords of the suit premises which they purchased in terms of the registered deeds of sale dated 06/11/1989 and 24/09/1991. Since then the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit premises. The Defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs.105/- payable according to the English Calendar months. The Defendant defaulted in payment of rent from January 1981 to April 1995; the Defendant caused damaged to the suit properties by keeping scrap irons on the floor of it. This apart, the Defendant used to operate gas-welding machine inside the premises with help of hammer and other tools creating nuisance and annoyance to the Plaintiffs and their family members. The Plaintiffs further alleged that they reside in the first floor of the suit premises and the Defendant occupies the ground floor by keeping a broken chassis in front of the entrance of the suit premises. The Plaintiffs have bakery business in another room of the ground floor. The Plaintiffs reasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation. The Plaintiffs served notice to quit under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 upon the Defendant on expiry of the month of June 1995 but the Defendant neglected and failed to do so.

3. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession.

4. The Defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement denying all the materials allegations. Apart from raising, defenses of limitation, estoppel and waiver as well as denial of service of notice to quit under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 pleaded that he was not aware of the purchase of suit premises by the Plaintiffs. The positive case of the Defendant was that he was a tenant in respect of one room on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs.125/- payable according to the English Calendar months and he paid rent up to May 1991 against duly issued receipt. Payments were made to Plaintiff No. 2. Subsequently the Plaintiffs refused to accept the rent although it was duly tendered by way of money order to the Plaintiff No. 2 from the months of June 1991 to October 1993.

5. The rent was refused to be accepted repeatedly. It was further pleaded in the written statement that the Plaintiff No. 2 took a loan of Rs.1420/- from the Defendant on condition to adjust the same against the monthly rent but the said had not been adjusted. For the purpose of livelihood, the Defendant runs a grill manufacturing business in one room in the suit premises with valid trade licence and electric connection in his own name. It was further pleaded that Plaintiffs including their family members have adequate accommodation and they do not require the suit premises reasonably. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the suit may be dismissed.

6. On the basis of rival pleading, following issues were framed:

1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and prayer?

2. Is the notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act legal and whether the same was duly served upon the Defendant?

3. Is the Defendant a defaulter in the payment of monthly rent of the suit premises?

4. Has the Defendant caused any damage to the suit premises?

5. Whether the Defendant has been causing any nuisance in the suit premises?

6. Are the suit premises reasonably required by the Plaintiffs and their family members for their own use and occupation? 7. Are the Plainti