PARIMAL MITRA Vs. PARESH CHANDRA HAZRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendants nos. 1 and 3 to 5, and it is directed against order no. 51 dated July 29, 1981 of the learned Judge, 5th bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2317 of 1958 holding that the said court has jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by the plaintiff opposite party.

(2.) The plaintiff's case in short is that he was at all material times and still is a tenant under the defendants nos. 1 and 3 to 5 of the entire building known as Atindra Dham and situate at Gopal Ballav Road, Sea Beach, Puri at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- payable according to the English Calendar month. The defendants nos. 6 to 9 are the subtenants under the plaintiff. On august 31, 1977, the defendant no. 4, one of the landlords of the plaintiff, took him to the Hongkong House, Calcutta and he was compelled to sign some papers. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that he was made to execute a resolution and/or an agreement whereby he had purported to surrender his tenancy in respect of the disputed building in favour of the owners and landlords. Under that agreement, a sum or Rs. 16,000/- was payable to the plaintiff by the said defendants as consideration for the surrender. In the suit, the plaintiff has, inter alia, Prayed for the following reliefs : Decree be passed declaring that the purported resolution and/or agreement dated 31st August, 1977 at the meeting held at Hongkong House office of the defendant no. 9 is illegal, collusive and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff. Declaration that the defendants nos. 1 and 3 to 5 have committed breach of the purported agreement dated 31st August, 1977 held at the office of Bharat Refinieries Employees Co-Operative Society at Hongkong House and the plaintiff had right to cancel and has cancelled the said agreement in the alternative. Decree declaring that the purported resolution and the purported agreement dated 31st August, 1977 has not affected in any respect of the premises Atindra Dham at Puri under the defendants nos. 1 and 3 to 5. Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 and 3 to 5 from realizing any rent from defendant nos. 6 to 9, different sub-tenants under the plaintiff in the premises Atindra Dham at Sea Coast Puri and from disturbing plaintiffs possession of the said Atindra Dham in any manner whatsoever.

(3.) The defendants nos. 1 and 3 to 5 have been contesting the suit by filing a written statement. It has been admitted by them that the plaintiff was a tenant in respect of the disputed building. But it is alleged that the plaintiff has surrendered his tenancy by the said agreement dated August 31, 1977. It is contended by them that the suit cannot be tried by the City Civil Court, Calcutta for want of jurisdiction as contemplated by section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.