TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .48. The father of the defendant was originally the tenant of M/s. Planters Stores Agency paying an annual rent of ₹ 50/- by putting up temporary structures on the suit land for residential purpose. After the purchase by the plaintiff, he continued as tenant accepting the plaintiff as a landlord. He defaulted in payment of the rent for a period of 1.1.62 to 28.2.65. He also sublet a part of the structure standing thereon to proforma defendants Nos. 2-5. Besides, the plaintiff bona fide required the suit land for their use and occupation. A notice of ejectment was issued on 8.1.65 calling upon the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession. He did not do so Hence the suit. 4. The original defendant Ramprit Kumar filed a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the second appeal can be allowed. Hence, the present Special Leave Petition. 8. This Court on 4.10.91 ordered thus:- Issue notice. The question is a short one and that is whether in the second appeal stage the question of the service of the notice should have been permitted to be raised at all. The notice shall specify that the matter will be finally disposed of on the S.L.P. stage itself on the S.L.P. papers at the next date of hearing. 9. Therefore the only question which we are called upon to decide is as to the validity of the notice. 10. The learned Munsiff cast many issues, Issue No. 5 reads as follows:- Whether the notice terminating the tenancy is a valid one and whether there is proper service. 11. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h law. He did not state that notice was not served. P. W.3, Harinarayan Mitra, a petition writer of the court, deposed that he was attached to Shri C.C.Chakrabarty, advocate of Dibrugarh. He further deposed that he posted the ejectment notice Ext. 2 by registered post. Ext2(1) was the signature of his lawyer Shri C.C.Chakrabarty. Ext.3 was the postal receipt while Ext.4 was the acknowledgment receipt. Service of ejectment notice was proved duly. I have gone through the contents of Ext.2 and found that it complied with the requirement of law. Notice was found to be valid and proper and this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Order 8 Rule 5(1) reads as follows:- Every allegation of fact in the plaint, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brugarh, served the said late Ramprit Kumar the father of the defendant No. 1 with a notice of ejectment dated 8.1.65 through Regd. A/D post requiring the said late Ramprit Kumar the father of the defendant No. 1 to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the said land on the expiry of 28th day of February 1966 after removal of the temporary structures therefrom. The said notice of ejectment was duly delivered and served upon the said late Ramprit Kumar the father of the defendant No. 1 and copy of the said notices were also sent to the Proforma defendants Nos. 2,3,4 and 5. The true copy of the said notices and the postal receipt and the A/D receipt are filed herewith and marked as plaintiffs documents Nos. 1,2 3. 16. The answer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
