RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. JANASEVAK TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19th December, 2011 passed by learned 4th Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alipore in Misc. Case No. 546 of 2009 arising out of Title Execution Case No.25 of 2009.

(2.) The fact of the case, in short, is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. M/s. D.K. Majumdar & Co. and Dilip Kumar Majumdar were inducted by respondent No.1 Janasevak Trust as tenant and an agreement between them was executed whereby the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were entitled to assign sublet or underlet any portion of the tenanted premises without any consent of the landlord. Subsequently, petitioner/appellant Raj Kumar Agarwal and others were inducted as sub-tenant by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The respondent No.1 Janasevak Trust filed a suit bearing Tittle Suit No.110 of 2006 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 viz. M/s. D.K. Majumdar & Co. and Dilip Kumar Majumdar praying for eviction, accounting and mesne profit. The suit was decreed on contest on 18th February, 2009. The respondent No.1 Janasevak Trust filed an Execution Case bearing No.25 of 2009. In the said Execution proceeding the present appellant Raj Kumar Agarwal and others filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the present appellants, they were inducted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 at a monthly rental of Rs.8,750/- according to English calendar month. On 18th May, 2009, the petitioner/appellant came to know that a Court bailiff with police personnels came to the premises to execute the writ of possession as per decree for eviction passed on 18th February, 2009 in the suit premises bearing No.59/B, Chowringhee Road, Bhowanipur, Kolkata. It was the case of the appellants that since they were not made as party in the Ejectment Suit of 110 of 2006, the decree is a nullity and cannot be executed against them. The Trial Court dismissed the Misc. Case bearing No.546 of 2009 filed under Order 21 Rule 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure on contest.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the appellants Raj Kumar Agarwal and others have preferred this appeal before this Court.