ARUN DAS Vs. PARESH CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeal have been preferred by the defendant-appellant being dissatisfied with judgment and decree dated 22.7.94 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South) in title appeal No. 22/92 affirming the judgment and decree dated October 5, 1991 passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, at Alipore in title suit No. 316 of 1986. Both the title suits being title suit Nos. 316 and 325 of 1986 have been filed by the plaintiff Sri Paresh Ch. Das. Both the title suits were heard analogously by the learned Munsif.

(2.) The title Suit No. 316 of 1986 was filed by the plaintiff Sri Paresh Ch. Das which was a suit for eviction of licensee on revocation of licence. The case made out by the plaintiff in this title suit as would appear from the plaint itself in brief is inter alia, as follows:

(3.) The plaintiff P.C. Das purchased a residential plot of land measuring about 2 kottahs and 1 sq. foot and made a construction in and over the said plot and the said premises was numbered as 19R, Selimpur, Calcutta 31. In the said constructed premises of the plaintiff there was a vacant room at the middle western corner. The defendant Sri Arun Das is the full blood younger brother of the plaintiff. The defendant had no house to reside and the plaintiff out of affection allowed the defendant to reside in the said vacant room situated at almost middle western portion of the said premises which is the subject-matter of the suit herein. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to reside there in the suit property as licensee and it was an understanding that as and when the plaintiff would require the premises the licensee defendant would have to vacate the suit premises. The plaintiff was doing business at Tinsukia, Assam. Subsequently, when the plaintiff required the suit property he requested the defendant to quite and vacate the same. But the defendant prayed for some more time so that he could find out alternative accommodation and he could shift there vacating the suit premises. The plaintiff on humanitarian consideration conceeded to the request of the said defendant. Thereafter Sri Nirmal Das, the elder son of the plaintiff came to Calcutta to start on business in or around the city of Calcutta when the plaintiff again requested the defendant to find out alternative accommodation and to vacate the suit property. But since the defendant did not vacate, the plaintiff had to construct a shop room facing Selimpur Road at the northern boundary of the said premises and for want of accommodation the son of the plaintiff had to start his business in one portion of the said shop room and the other extended portion of the said shop room was being used for his residence. The plaintiff out of sympathy decided to rehabilitate the defendant, the own brother of the plaintiff and sent two bank draft amount to Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- dated 1.1.1980 in the name of his son Nirmal Das for securing some alternative arrangement for the defendant and for him. Out of the said fund two plots were purchased. One in the name of the defendant and the other in the name of Nirmal Das. The plaintiff, thereafter, again requested the defendant to vacate the suit property but the defendant by sending the letter to the plaintiff who was at Tinsukia, Assam prayed for some more time. Thereafter, the plaintiff was informed that the defendant was encroaching vacant space lying at the western side of the suit property and then he asked the defendant to quite and vacate the suit property and orally revoked the licence previously granted to the defendant in respect of the suit property and he finally asked him to quite and vacate on 15.7.1986. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the suit praying for a decree for recovery of khas possession at the suit property described in the Schedule of the plaint by evicting the defendant therefrom. The plaintiff Paresh Ch. Das filed Title Suit No. 316/86 against his brother Arun Das. On similar cause of action this plaintiff Paresh Ch. Das filed another suit being title suit No. 325/86. This title suit No. 325/86 was filed by Sri Paresh Ch. Das against his sister Sm. Sadhana Das on similar grounds. Both the suits were heard analogously by the learned trial Judge. The case made out by the plaintiff was identical and the defence was also identical. In this case that is Title Suit No. 316/86 the defendants in his written statement made out a case denying all the allegations made in the plaint.