SRI AMAR NATH BOSE Vs. GOURI NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants against a judgment and a decree of affirmation.

(2.) The respondent Smt. Gouri Nag as plaintiff filed Title Suit being Title Suit No.41 of 1998 praying for eviction of the defendant being a licensee from the suit premises described in schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint. The plaintiff's case, in short, is that premises No.10 Sarbakhan Road P.S. Chitpur was the property of Pannalal Mitra and his daughter Mahamaya Bose. A trust was created by them in respect of said property through a trust deed dated 30.12.1968. As per said trust deed the property was divided into three lots and lot 'A' was settled to Prasanta Kumar Bose (one of the sons of Mahamaya Bose and her husband Kamal Bose), lot 'B' was alloted to present plaintiff Gouri Nag (married daughter of Mahamaya Bose and Kamal Bose) and lot 'C' was allotted to Mahamaya Bose. As per trust deed all of them got said properties for life interest and thereafter their shares would devolve upon their respective heirs on their death. Pannalal Mitra, Mahamaya Bose and her husband Kamal Bose were the original trustees. Later on lot 'A', lot 'B' and lot 'C' were renumbered by Kolkata Municipal Corporation as 10 A, 10 C and 10 B Sarba Khan Road respectively. The defendant being unemployed brother of plaintiff was permitted to start a business in a portion of lot 'B' which was described in schedule A of the plaint. The trust deed was later on revoked by a deed dated 08.09.1990 and the persons being allottees of the respective portions in terms of the original trust deed became absolute owners of said portions. The plaintiff later on purchased allotted portion of her mother Mahamaya Bose i.e., lot 'C' which was renumbered as 10 'B' by a kobala dated 5th of July, 1986. At the prayer of the defendant plaintiff also permitted him to use some open space of lot 'C' property as a licensee which was described in schedule B of the plaint. Later on defendant got employment and his wife started to run a decoration business. As defendant started to misbehave with the plaintiff, plaintiff revoked the licence by sending a notice of revocation of licence dated 21.11.1990. As in spite of sending of said notice defendant did not vacate the suit premises, the suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant contested said suit filing a written statement followed by additional written statement denying material allegations of the plaint. The defendant contended inter alia that as plaintiff and Mahamaya Bose were given only life interest in respect of lot 'B' and lot 'C' property respectively through the trust deed they had neither any right of granting any licence nor any right of selling out the property.