SRI SUJIT RANJAN SAHA Vs. SOM PROKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is to the order no.14 dated April 22, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Sealdah in Misc. Case No.102 of 2007.

(2.) THE decree -holders filed this revisional application contending, inter alia, that they instituted a suit being Title Suit No.80 of 1995 before the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Sealdah 2 against one, Suresh Kumar Dhingra for recovery of khas possession after evicting the original tenant, mense profits and other reliefs on the ground of subletting, reasonable requirement, etc. The suit was decreed on July 20, 2007 and the said decree was put into execution. The objector / opposite party herein filed an application under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 of the C.P.C. praying for determination of right, title and interest of the opposite party in respect of the premises in suit and that application was converted into the Misc. Case No.012 of 2007. The petitioners filed an application raising the question of maintainability of that misc. case and the said application was rejected on contest. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record I find that the petitioners have specifically contended that they are the landlords in respect of the premises in execution case as described in the application. They got a decree for recovery of possession against the original tenant namely, Suresh Kumar Dhingra. It is contended by the decree holder that Mr. Dhingra was inducted as a tenant at the rate of Rs.500/ - per month in 1975 and the decreed for recovery of possession was passed against him on the ground of subletting. The objector / opposite party has specifically contended in his misc. case that he has been residing in the premises in suit since 1980. But the suit was decreed on the ground that the property was sublet to a third party without express permission of the landlords. The plaintiffs have not stated anything in his application that he paid rents to the landlords, that is, the petitioners and got rent receipts from them. So, unless and until, a sub - tenant is inducted with the express permission of the landlords in writing, such a sub -tenant need not be included in the suit for eviction by the landlords against his original tenant. If for argument's sake, it is presume that the objector has been possessing the premises in suit since 1980 without any notice in writing of the landlords, he cannot be termed as a subtenant with notice.