TARAK NATH MANNA Vs. NITYANANDA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant against this judgment of affirmation. The respondent as the plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No.214 of 1994 praying for eviction of the defendant being a licensee from the suit premises. The plaintiff's case, in short, is that he was the trustee to the Estate of Durga Rani Saha in respect of premises No.19/H/1, Dum Dum Road, P.S. Chitpur, Calcutta 30 (suit property) and that after demise of Durga Rani Saha he became the sole trustee of said Estate. Under repeated request of the defendant, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy the suit premises as a licensee with effect from 1 st May, 1992 of payment of Rs.700/- (Rupees seven hundred only) per month as licence fee and Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred only) per month as maintenance charges. A formal agreement of licence was executed between the parties in presence of witnesses. Though as per terms of said agreement the licence expired on 30 th April, 1993 but plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy the same for three months under same terms and conditions as per request of the defendant. As defendant did not vacate the suit premises even expiry of said extended period of three months plaintiff revoked the licence and also sent a notice to quit dated 22 nd March, 1994 under Registered Post as well as Under Certificate of Posting. In spite of sending of those notices defendant did not vacate the suit premises and hence was the suit.

(2.) The appellant / defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending, inter alia, that defendant was inducted in the suit premises by the plaintiff as a tenant with effect from 1 st May, 1993. It is further case that at the request of the plaintiff the defendant put his signature on the formal deed of agreement which was couched as a document of licence. The defendant also paid Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the plaintiff as security deposit on account of said tenancy. The plaintiff sent monthly electric bill to the defendant in the covered envelope addressing the defendant as a tenant. The plaintiff received monthly rent for few months but thereafter refused to accept the same and the defendant was compelled to deposit the same in the office of the Rent Controller, Calcutta. The defendant being a tenant is governed by the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the present suit for eviction of a licensee is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Learned Trial Court framed several issues and decreed the suit for eviction treating the defendant a licensee and not a tenant in respect of the suit premises.