ABID HOSSAIN Vs. ABDUL KUDDUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants against the judgment of affirmation. The plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction alleging that they purchased the premises No.14 B Samsul Huda Road, Kolkata 17 from its owner Shantimoy Banerjee through a kobala. The plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy one room and some open space of said premises as a licensee for two months without any licence fee. As the defendant did not vacate the suit premises in spite of repeated requests, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for eviction after revocation of the licence. The defendant contested said suit by filing a written statement followed by an additional statement. It is alleged that one Jumrati was the thika tenant in the suit property under its original owner Shantimoy Banerjee and that on his death said thika tenancy devolved upon his only son Nazir Ahmed. Nazir Ahmed inducted the defendant in the southern half of the three cottahs of the land at a monthly rental of Rs.55/-. The defendant started his business by raising new structures on said land.

(2.) After passing of Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 thika tenants become direct tenants under the State and Shantimoy Banerjee had no saleable interest in the suit property and hence plaintiff did not get any title to the suit property on the alleged purchase of the same from Shantimoy Banerjee. On 22.09.1977 the defendant Abid Hossain entered into an agreement with Nazir Ahmed for purchasing his Thika Tenancy Right in the suit property. It was further case that there was a tripartite agreement dated 22.09.1977 in between the defendant, plaintiff No.1and Nazir Ahmed and accordingly plaintiff No.1 and the defendant acquired thika tenanted land of Nazir Ahmed, each of them having one and half cottahs of land. The defendant submitted returns to the Kolkata Thika Controller after coming into operation of Thika Tenancy (Acquisitions and Regulations) Act of 1981. The defendant was never inducted in the suit premises by the plaintiff as a licensee and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant was inducted in the suit property as a licensee under them as plaintiffs purchased the suit property only in 1983 whereas it was proved that the defendant was in possession of the same since 1973 and running a business thereupon.