9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom executing the ejectment decree passed in Title Suit No. 57 of 1984. 2. S .N. Das, the deceased tenant now represented by the plaintiff Respondents 1 to 3 and his only son, Respondent 4 was inducted as a tenant in the year 1951 by Shri Anil Kumar Sen, predecessor in interest of the appellant with respect to the suit premises at 190-A, Sarat Bose Road, PS Tollygunge, Calcutta 700 029 at a monthly rent of ₹ 60. S. N. Das expired on 14-4-1976. The appellant instituted Title Suit No. 57 of 1984 seeking eviction of Respondent 4 for possession of the suit premises in the Court of 3rd Additional Munsif at Alipore in which an ejectment decree was passed on 28-6-1985 ordering vacation of the suit premises within 90 (ninety) days and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate court dismissed the appeal on 28-9-1994. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and decree passed by the courts below, Respondents 1 to 3 filed Second Appeal No. 101 of 1995 in the High Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment. At the time of admission, a number of questions of law were framed but at the time of arguments only Questions 8 and 9 were pressed, which are to the following effect: VIII. For that in the absence of surrender by the entire body of cotenants, the tenancy continues and the decree is not binding on the plaintiffs. IX. For that the burden is on the landlord to prove that the original tenancy ceased to continue and the court of appeal below failed to appreciate such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce could be served on any one of the joint tenants. In support of this proposition, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in H. C. Pandey v. G. C. Paul ((1989) 3 SCC 77) in which it has been held that in the case of joint tenancy, notice could be served on any one of the joint tenants and the suit could be filed against the said tenant. He also contended that since the plaintiff - Respondents 1 to 3 did not take any part in the running of the business, they be deemed to have surrendered their tenancy rights in favour of Respondent 4. In the circumstances, the suit filed by the appellant against Respondent 4 was maintainable and the High Court has erred in reversing the well considered judgments of the courts below. 8. We do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
