MANOJ KUMAR SASMAL Vs. PANKAJ SASMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated February 6, 2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta in S.C.C. Suit No.159 of 2007 thereby allowing an application dated January 14, 2010 filed by the judgment debtor.

(2.) THE plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted the said suit against the opposite party under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta praying for recovery of possession of the premises-in-suit as described in schedule of the plaint. THE opposite party, brother of the plaintiff was allowed to stay in the suit premises as a licensee and upon revocation of the license, he failed to deliver possession of the demised premises in favour of the plaintiff and so, the application under Section 41 of the said Act was filed.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the order impugned cannot be supported. The impugned order had been passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as the S.C.C. Suit No.159 of 2007 was nonest on the date of passing the impugned order. The learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court was within his competence to pass appropriate orders of delivery of possession under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, Calcutta upon giving due opportunity to the opposite party. The said S.C.C. Suit No.159 of 2007 was disposed of on contest on March 26, 2009 directing the opposite party to vacate the premises in suit within 2 months from the date of passing order.