KAKOLI MOLLA Vs. SAIDUL ISLAM @ ARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit filed by the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction along with mandatory injunction was dismissed on merits by the learned Judge, XIth Bench of the City Civil Court on 28th September, 2015. This decree is under challenge. Top

(2.) The defendants/respondents are not represented.

(3.) The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit on a plea that she is a business person and was in need of accommodation. During her search, she could find out suit property and approached the defendants in the month of September, 2005 for creating a tenancy in her favour. On the basis of the agreement reached between the parties, a tenancy was created in respect of a shop room upon payment of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. From the said premises, she started her business as M/s. SKM Computer Centre. However, in the month of September, 2009 she was asked to vacate the said shop room. She initiated proceeding under Section 144(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is alleged that she has been paying Rs.15,000/- per month towards occupational charges. The defendants on 2nd September, 2010 illegally and forcefully entered into the suit premises and dispossessed her and had taken possession of the property illegally. The plaint was amended to include a prayer for recovery of possession. The defendants filed the written statement. The specific plea of the defendants was that the defendants, in fact, were carrying on business from the said shop room and the trade licence was in their favour. The defendants are in the said business for the last 34 years. Owing to the growth of business, the defendants were looking for an assistant who can look after the said business. The plaintiff offered her employment on remuneration. Accordingly, the defendants allowed her to use and occupy the portion of the said shop room during business hours, which, later on she tried to grab on claiming tenancy under the defendants. The defendants denied receipt of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The defendants have referred to the writ petition filed in this Court for cancellation of the purported, manufactured and forged trade licence of the plaintiff. The defendants have also referred to an order dated 3rd August, 2010 by which this Court had directed the Chief Manager, Licence & Marketing Department, KMC to dispose of the matter regarding grant of trade licence to the plaintiff.