DEBASHISH CHATTERJEE Vs. BHARAT AND ASSOCIATES AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 8.9.1998 passed by V Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut allowing amendment application filed by the plaintiff. The opposite parties filed caveat and are represented by Mr. R.B. Singhal, Advocate. Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. R.B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Both the learned Counsels agree that this revision may be decided on merits.

(2.) In order to appreciate the arguments raised by the learned Counsel it would be relevant to refer to the plaint allegations. The suit was filed by Shri Bharat and Associates, a registered partnership firm, through its registered partner as plaintiff No. 1 and the partners by name (plaintiffs 2-9) against Dr. A.N. Chatterjee, father of the revisionist. It is not disputed that old plot No. 103, new Nos. 657, 658, "659 and present Nos. 57/58, 912/ 913 is situated at Begum Bridge Road, Meerut popularly known as 'Apka Bazar Building'. It is admitted between the parties that A.D. Mukherjee was owner of the aforesaid building. As A.D. Mukherjee was Government servant and was posted at various places he entrusted supervision of his properties to the original defendant who happened to be his near relation. A.D. Mukherjee used to pay Rs. 50.00 per month for supervision of the properties. It is further admitted that after the death of A.D. Mukherjee, Smt. Uma Mukherjee and Anand Mukherjee inherited his properties. It is further admitted that the plaintiffs had purchased the said properties from Smt. Uma Mukherjee and Anand Kumar Mukherjee. It is further admitted by the parties that the defendant had been in occupation of the rear part (first floor), portion towards the eastern, northern side of the building popularly known as 'Apka Bazar'. The only dispute between the parties is that according to the plaintiffs the defendant was a licensee and was living in the said portion with the permission of the original owner. The defendant's case is that he was residing in the house as tenant and was regularly paying rent to A.D. Mukherjee and thereafter to his successor, in-interest. The token rent was only Re. 1/- per month.

(3.) The plaintiffs also sent notice and asked the defendant to vacate the premises in suit. The defendant refused to vacate the premises and on this cause of action the plaintiffs filed suit for eviction and for damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000.00 per month on regular side. It appears that during the pendency of the suit the aforesaid building was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.