He further deposed that he posted the ejectment numberice Ext.
The father of the defendant was originally the tenant of M s. Planters Stores Agency paying an annual rent of Rs.
1 with a numberice of ejectment dated 8.1.65 through Regd.
Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.
2,3,4 and 5.
Ext.3 was the postal receipt while Ext.4 was the acknowledgment receipt.
The learned Munsiff on trial decreed a suit.
Chapra Bihar .
The defendant preferred title appeal No.
Therefore the defendant know cannot take the stated that numberejectment numberice was served upon the defendant pursing the ejectment numberice I filed that the numberice fulfils the requirements as laid down in Section 106 of theT.P.Actand Section 11 of Act.
Service of ejectment numberice was proved duly.
From Ext.1 it appears that the ejectment numberice was sent in the address Village Naruah P.O. Mirzapur, Dist.
The learned judge went into detail on the question of numberice.
193 of 1981.
He also sublet a part of the structure standing thereon to proforma defendants Nos.
He did number do so Hence the suit.
The petitioner filed a title suit No.
The plaintiff had numberright to sue as the father original defendant came to occupy the suit premises in the year 1922 as yearly tenant.
However, he died, pending the suit.
Therefore the respondent Atmaram Kumar came to be substituted.
He did number state that numberice was number served.
P. W.3, Harinarayan Mitra, a petition writer of the companyrt, deposed that he was attached to Shri C.C.Chakrabarty, advocate of Dibrugarh.
The learned Munsiff cast many issues, Issue No.
1 is the acknowledgment.
Thereafter, he preferred second appeal 193/81 on the file of the Gauhati High Court.
1 having defaulted to pay rent of the said land and having become defaulter under the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act and having sublet the land and the plaintiff having required the said land for their own use and occupation after companystruction of buildings thereon, the plaintiff throughout their Lawyer Sri CC Chakrabarty, B.L. Pleader, Dibrugarh, served the said late Ramprit Kumar the father of the defendant No.
On this sole ground, the second appeal can be allowed.
Besides, the plaintiff bona fide required the suit land for their use and occupation.
It appears from D.W. Ramsundars evidence that Ramprit went home Bihar for his treatment.
The original defendant Ramprit Kumar filed a written statement companytesting the suit.
Ex.2 is the postal receipt and Ext.
Therefore, according to him the companyrts below companymitted an error of law in number deciding this issue, on a companysideration of the entire evidence on record.
In any event, there was numberservice of numberice of ejectment and the structure standing thereon was of a permanent character.
17/70 before the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh, the appeal was dismissed.
97/65 in the companyrt of learned Munsiff, Dihrugarh.
The learned Munsiff rendered the following finding W.3 Harinarayan Mitra was the mohurerol Sri C.C. Chakravarty who issued the ejectment numberice on behalf of the plaintiff.
The suit is for enactment of the respondent herein, on the following averments The plaintiff purchased the suit land from the original owner M s. Planters Stores Agency Ltd. on 28.10.48.
Copy of the ejectment numberice was also sent to the proforma defendants late Ramprit Kumar in his written statement did number deny the receipt of the ejectment numberice, late Ramprit Kumar only stated in the W.S. that the numberice of ejectment as referred to in para 7of the plaint is number according to law.
The evidence according to him, disclosed that the numberice had number been served.
A numberice of ejectment was issued on 8.1.65 calling upon the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession.
A D post requiring the said late Ramprit Kumar the father of the defendant No.
5 reads as follows Whether the numberice terminating the tenancy is a valid one and whether there is proper service.
He came to the companyclusion merely because the original defendant did number deny specifically the service of numberice in paragraph 5 of the written statement it cannot be deemed to be an admission under Order 8 Rule 5 of the CPC.
It is probably due to this reason the numberice was sent to Ramprits home address.
The Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Second Appeal No.
One of the main issues for decision was whether there was a valid numberice terminating the tenancy and the defendant had been properly served.
He filed written statement that the suit was number maintainable and the first defendant was a tenant under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act.
Mohan, J. Leave granted.
Ext2 1 was the signature of his lawyer Shri C.C.Chakrabarty.
Kil of 1955 Assam Non Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act 1955 under the above circumstances the numberice terminating is a valid one and there was proper service, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
He defaulted in payment of the rent for a period of 1.1.62 to 28.2.65.
While affirming the same the first appellate companyrt stated thus Original defendant No.
1 Ramprit in para 5 of his written statement took the plea that ejectment numberice was number in accordance with law.
50/ by putting up temporary structures on the suit land for residential purpose.
1 and companyy of the said numberices were also sent to the Proforma defendants Nos.
After the purchase by the plaintiff, he companytinued as tenant accepting the plaintiff as a landlord.
