An appeal by the respondent was dismissed by the first appellate companyrt.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 28th January, 1976 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
A second appeal by the respondent was, however, allowed by the High Court by its judgment and decree dated January 28, 1976.
The suit was resisted by the respondent who alleged that he had been let in by one Sishubala Bisayee, that the appellants had numbertitle to the property and had fraudulently secured some documents from her which had given rise to a suit which was pending.
The suit was filed on June 12,1976, and was decreed by the trial companyrt on February 17,1969.
It was also denied that the premises were old and needed to be demolished, and that the respondent was in arrears of rent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent is the tenant of some rooms in the said property on a monthly rent of Rs.
439 of 1977.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt which found that the respondent was a tenant of the appellants, and that the appellants were entitled to possession and to recover the arrears of rent.
Pankaj Kalra, D. N. Mukherjee and Rathin Das for the Appellant.
by PATHAK, J. This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta dismissing their suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.
1195 of 1970.
The appellants are the owner of house property situate in Mauza memari in the District of Burdwan in West Bengal.
The Judgment of the Court was Delivered.
Shankar Ghose and G.S. Chatterjee for the Respondent.
The appellants filed a suit, out of which the present appeal arise, claiming that the respondent was in arrears of rent which he refused to pay despite demands and that the accommodation was required for demolition to enable the appellants to companystruct separate house for their own business.
