DABU PAUL Vs. SUMATI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant against this judgment of affirmation. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No.379 of 1989 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah, alleging that she was the owner of the suit house wherein defendant No.1 Debu Paul alias Prabir Paul's father-in-law being defendant No.2 was a tenant in respect of one room only. The defendant No.1 is a notorious criminal of the locality and often threatened the plaintiff for taking forcible possession of a room in the suit house. It is further case that defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 forcibly compelled the plaintiff to sign on some rent receipts and also forcibly took possession of the suit room on 28.05.1983 by evicting plaintiff's mother therefrom. The plaintiff lodged one G. D. in the local police station on that score. On account of unruly behaviour of the defendant No.1 the plaintiff was compelled to lodge several G. D.s. as well as complaints to the police. As defendant No.1 did not vacate the suit room in spite of requests, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession of the same by evicting defendant No.1 trespasser therefrom.

(2.) The defendant No.1 contested said suit by filing written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that he was a tenant in respect of the suit room at a rental of Rs.40/- per month payable according to English calendar month and that he was the tenant in that room for last 13 years. The suit was liable to be dismissed being a false one.

(3.) Learned Trial Court framed several issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and came to a finding that defendant No.1 was a trespasser in the suit room and accordingly passed a decree of eviction. The defendant No.1 preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.16 of 1998 against said judgment of eviction. It was dismissed on contest by the impugned judgment dated 14 th of February, 2002. The defendant No.1 has filed this second appeal being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 14 th of February, 2002.