GITA NAYEK Vs. DURGAPADA KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of the judgment passed by this Court on 6/12/2019 in FMA No.1205 of 2012 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court at Sealdah on 27/4/2009 and 6/5/2009 respectively in Title Suit No.240 of 1992 by allowing the prayer of the appellant/opposite party and directing the respondent/petitioner to quit, vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the suit property within two months from the date of delivery of the judgment.

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioner that she is a tenant only under the opposite party No.1 Durgapada Karmakar who purchased the specific allotted portion of the premises in suit of which the petitioner is a tenant. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between other two opposite parties who purchased specific demarcated portion of the premises in suit over which the petitioner had also no right of tenancy and interest. Therefore, the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are not the landlords of the petitioner. This Court while affirming the decree of eviction passed by the learned trial Judge considered the requirement of the family members of the appellants Nos. 2 and 3. Thus, the Court made an apparent error while allowing the appeal. It is further stated by the petitioner that since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the appellant Nos. 2 and 3, tenancy was not determined in accordance with law. This Court also did not consider that no issue as to whether the plaintiff No.1/appellant had suitable accommodation elsewhere or not, was framed by the learned trial Judge. Without consideration and adjudication of such issue no decree can be passed against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner that this Court wrongly held that the appellants/opposite parties purchased undivided 1/3rd share each in the premises in suit with specific demarcation in the plan annexed to the deeds as plot Nos. A, B and C respectively. According to Mr. Mukherjee, this Court came to such finding on the ground that the premises in suit was not partitioned amongst the purchasers /opposite parties by metes and bounds either by a deed of partition or by a decree passed by a competent civil Court. According to Mr. Mukherjee, when the premises in suit was purchased in three well demarcated and partitioned plots, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be held to be the joint landlords of the petitioner. Therefore, the Court committed an apparent error by holding that all the opposite parties reasonably require the suit premises.