CHANDRABHUSHANSING SADHUSING YADAV Vs. SHRESHTHA CHANDRA BURMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision applicant is the original defendant and the landlord while the respondent is the original plaintiff and he was licensee in the suit premises. The suit premises were taken by the plaintiff from the defendant under leave and licence agreement. According to the plaintiff leave and licence was entered into on 28th October, 1997 and it was for 11 months. Therefore, period of leave and licence was to expire on 28th September, 1998. However, on 2nd August, 1998 defendant with the help of his hirelings forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit premises. Plaintiff also lodged report with the police but no action was taken. In such circumstances, he filed Regular Civil Suit No.173 of 1998 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the suit premises. The suit was contested by the defendant and according to him leave and licence agreement was entered into on 1-9-1997 for a period of 11 months and the said period had expired on 30th July, 1998 and after expiry of that period on 2nd August, 1998, the plaintiff had himself handed over possession of the suit premises to the defendant. Relations between the parties were cordial and of faith. However, later on the plaintiff has filed false suit under Section 6. As he had vacated the premises himself, the suit is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

(2.) Several issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Plaintiff did not examine himself on the ground of his ill health but his son Satyajeet, aged about 27 years, was examined and according to him, he himself was working alongwith his father in the suit shop and was carrying on business of making grills. The defendant examined himself and four other witnesses in respect of his claim that the possession was handed over by the plaintiff on 2nd August, 1998. Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff and rejected the contention of the defendant. In the result, suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act came to be decreed against the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has preferred the present revision application against the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) Heard the leaned counsel for the Parties and perused the evidence as well as documents relied upon by the parties.