DINA NATH SAHA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today hearing has been concluded. This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of the case, briefly are as follows:-

(2.) The respondent No. 1, Ashok Kumar Bansal, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 99 read with section 151 CPC praying before the Learned Court to determine the questions of right, title and interest of the respondent No. 1 in the suit property and also the question of executability of the decree which was allegedly fraudulently obtained by the decree holder, that is, the plaintiffs/ appellants. However it may be stated here that the tenant defendant/ judgement-debtor did not prefer any appeal against the decree for eviction. Be that as it may, in the application under Order 21 Rule 99 road with section 151 CPC the respondent No. 1 (Ashok Kumar Bansal) claimed to be a tenant in the suit property being inducted by the plaintiffs/appellants at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- payable according to English Calendar. It was alleged in the said application that at the time of induction of the respondent No. 1 in the suit premises the appellants had represented to the respondent No. 1 that the original tenant, that is, the judgement-debtor had vacated the tenanted premises and had delivered vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiffs/appellants who had received rent from the respondent No. 1 but did not issue rent receipts and ultimately declared that the original tenant had not surrendered peaceful possession to the landlords (plaintiffs/appellants). It was also alleged in the said application that there was a talk of execution of a formal agreement of tenancy between the respondent No. 1 and the appellants but the said execution of the agreement was deliberately delayed by the appellants. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs/appellants by filing a written objection wherein the plaintiffs/appellants stated that the respondent No. 1 was inducted illegally as a sub-tenant by the original tenant (Abhoy Singh Jain) without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs/ appellants and the respondent No. 1 is an unlawful sub-tenant in the suit property. The appellants further stated in the said written objection that they had no knowledge about the handing over of the possession of the suit property to the respondent No. 1 by the said original tenant. According to the appellants, the respondent No. 1 has no legal right, title and/or interest in the suit premises.

(3.) The said application under Order 21 Rule 99 read with Section 151 came up for hearing when the Learned First Additional Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore by order dated 25.11.2003 dismissed the said application under order 21 Rule 99 read with section 151 CPC (registered as Misc. Case No. 11 of 2002) as not maintainable.