Skip to content


Miss. Sukla Choudhury Vs. Miss. Manjolyn Tweedie and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSuit No. 491 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Cal239
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 225 and 372; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC),1908 - Section 20 - Order 1, Rule 3; ;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106
AppellantMiss. Sukla Choudhury
RespondentMiss. Manjolyn Tweedie and ors.
DispositionSuit dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....against the defendants 5. to what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 5. about the first issue mr. john's first submission before me was that after independence and promulgation of the constitution, the letters patent, which gives jurisdiction. to the original side of this court has become non est or non-existent and as such the original side, which takes jurisdiction from the letters patent, cannot lawfully hear and determine this suit. this point was actually taken by mr. john in a reported judgment and in that matter mr. john's contention was rejected. the said matter is reported in : air1972cal470 and the same view was taken in air 1956 andh pra 161 (fb). i therefore answer issue no. 1 in the affirmative. 6. now coming to issue no. 2, mr. john's contention was that this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ajay K. Basu, J.

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Miss. Sukla Choudhury against the defendants for ejectment and consequential reliefs. According to the plaintiff, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are her tenants and defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are trespassers.

2. The main allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, being two young girls, were her tenants in respect of the portion of premises No. 5, Kyd Street and these two girls were of easy virtues and as such committed various acts of nuisance and immorality and under Sub-sections (m), (n) and (o) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, (sic) their tenancy has been forfeited and they should be ejected. Apart from that, it is also alleged that the defendants did not pay rent and are defaulters. According to the plaintiff, the defendants Nos. 3. 4 and 5 are trespassers who have trespassed into the said premises and likewise they should be ejected.

3. The main defence of the defendants is that the defendant No. 3, the alleged trespasser, who is the mother of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, is the real tenant and there is no truth in the allegations against them as alleged by the plaintiff and according to the defendant No. 3, the plaintiff improperly and illegally refused to accept rent and as such rents were deposited with the Rent Controller. The other defence, of course, was legal defence, taken by the defendants' counsel Mr. John about the jurisdiction of this court and misjoinder of parties.

4. The following issues were raised :

1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and determine this suit

2. Whether this suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action?

3. Is the defendant No. 3 a tenant under the plaintiff as alleged in para. 12 of the Written Statement?

4. Has the plaintiff any cause of action against the defendants

5. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

5. About the first issue Mr. John's first submission before me was that after independence and promulgation of the Constitution, the Letters Patent, which gives jurisdiction. to the Original Side of this Court has become non est or non-existent and as such the Original Side, which takes jurisdiction from the Letters Patent, cannot lawfully hear and determine this suit. This point was actually taken by Mr. John in a reported judgment and in that matter Mr. John's contention was rejected. The said matter is reported in : AIR1972Cal470 and the same view was taken in AIR 1956 Andh Pra 161 (FB). I therefore answer issue No. 1 in the affirmative.

6. Now coming to issue No. 2, Mr. John's contention was that this court's jurisdiction has been brought by valuing the suit at Rs. 54,000/- and by adding the defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as trespassers and, therefore, this suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and valuation etc. This identical point was taken by Mr. John before my learned brother Sabyasachi Mu-kharji, J. and His Lordship rejected the contention of Mr. John. This case has been reported in : AIR1975Cal427 and I agree with that decision. I, therefore, answer the issue No. 2 in the negative and hold that this suit is not bad for mis-joinder of parties or causes of action.

(In Paras. 7 to 13 the judgment considers the evidence and holds that it is the defendant No. 3 who is the tenant and not defendants 1 and 2).

14. Coming to issue No. 4 as the suit has been filed against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as tenants and no notice of ejectment has been served on the real -tenant, the defendant No. 3, I hold that the plaintiff has no cause of action in this suit against the defendants and I answer the issue accordingly.

15. In the result, the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case as some of the issues were held in favour of the plaintiff. I make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //