DEBABRATA MUKHERJEE Vs. KALYAN KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff appellant has filed a suit against the defendant respondent in the City Civil court at Calcutta, inter-alia, for a declaration that he is a tenant under the latter in respect of Flat No. 18, Premises No. 26, Chowringhee Road and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from executing the order for possession passed under Section 43 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 in Case No. 2408 of 1975 and from disturbing the plaintiff's possession in the said flat. After contested hearing the trial court has dismissed the plaintiff's application for granting temporary injunction in the above terms. Thereafter, the plaintiff appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY, the defendant respondent is a tenant in respect of the disputed flat under the Official Trustee of West Bengal. It is also not very much disputed that since the year 1962 the plaintiff has been occupying the said that The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant had inducted him as a subtenant under him subject to certain terms and conditions. The defendant has denied that the plaintiff was ever a tenant under him and his case is that the plaintiff was a licencee under him and that the said licence had been since determined. The defendant has claimed that, therefore he is entitled to recover possession of the flat in question.

(3.) IT has also transpired from the materials produced before the trial court that the Official Trustee, West bengal, had instituted in the City Civil court at Calcutta, Ejectment Suit No. 1152 of 1974 against the present defendant, interalia, on the allegation that the defendant was a tenant in respect of Flat No. 18. He was allegedly a defaulter in payment of rent and that he had illegally and unlawfully sublet the premises without the consent of his landlord. The defendant contested the said suit denying that he was a defaulter and claimed that he had paid advance rent of Rs. 5000/- adjustable from the monthly rent. He also denied that he had sublet the premises. The defendant further denied the receipt of any notice of ejectment.