LAWS(SC)-2007-12-84

RANJU ALIAS GAUTAM GHOSH Vs. REKHA GHOSH

Decided On December 14, 2007
RANJU ALIAS GAUTAM GHOSH Appellant
V/S
REKHA GHOSH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and final Order dated 30.1.2004 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in S.A. No. 212 of 1992 whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant herein.

(2.) Brief facts in nutshell are as follows : Originally one Anil Kumar Ghosh was a tenant in respect of the shop situated at 50-C Richi Road, Kolkata and respondent Nos. 1-6/plaintiffs are the landlords of the premises in dispute. The predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1-6 purchased the said property from one Smt. Manjusree Shyam Chowdhury. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was paying a rent of Rs. 20/- per month. The predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1-6 instituted a suit against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant for recovery of possession and mesne profit in respect of the premises in question which was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Ist Additional Court, Alipore, District 24 Parganas on 29.9.1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed an appeal before the Court of Assistant District Judge, 4th Court Alipore, 24 Parganas. During the pendency of the appeal the original tenant Anil Kumar Ghosh passed away and his L.Rs were brought on record. The said appeal was allowed with cost and the respondents therein were directed to give the vacant possession of the suit premises and also granted a decree for mesne profit @ Re.1/- per diem till the recovery of the possession. Being aggrieved by the said order, the tenants preferred a second appeal being S.A. No. 212 of 1992 before the High Court of Calcutta. On 30.1.2004, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the first appellate Court and directed to vacate the premises within 90 days from the date of the delivery of judgment. Challenging the said order, Ranju @ Gautam Ghosh filed this appeal before this Court by way of special leave petition.

(3.) Heard Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.