ASIS KUMAR MITRA Vs. PRADIP DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in T. S. 1820 of 1993, Asis Kumar Mitra filed the suit for a declaration that he is the monthly tenant under the defendants in respect of the suit room described in the schedule of the plaint. His case was that he and members of his family were inducted by the shebaits of the Debutter Estate of Lakshmi Thakurani, an idol being represented by its Shebaits Prakash Kumar Ghosh (defendant No. 2) and Late Prabhash Kumar Ghosh at a monthly rental of Rs. 50/- payable according to English clalender month. The father of the defendant No. 3 Prabhash used to collect rent from the plaintiff, who was a near relation of Prabhash. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had his own electric meter in the said premises with the consent of the shebaits. Plaintiff and the members of his family were the voters and their names are still appearing in the Electoral Rolls as the voters in that locality. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he used to pay the rent without any rent receipt as the landlords were his close relatives. But two months prior to the institution of the suit, the landlord refused to accept the rent, by informing that the shebaits had already sold away the property to defendant No. 1. It is further alleged that on 8.8.93 all the defendants threatened the plaintiff and members of his family with dire consequences, to compel them to leave the house. In this background the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

(2.) Title Suit No. 2375/93 was filed by the defendant No. 1 of the earlier suit, namely, Pradip Dutta against the plaintiff of that suit praying for recovery of possession on the allegation that he purchased the premises No. 4A, Krishna Ram Bose Street, Calcutta-700 004 by a registered deed of conveyance dated 25.6.93 from the trustees Prakash Kumar Ghosh and Prabhash Kumar Ghosh. The defendant was the nephew of the trustees who granted permissive right to use a portion of the premises, some time in the year 1973 as a licensee under the said trustees on a clear understanding that the defendant would vacate the said premises within a very short time. Subsequently, in the month of January, 1975 when the said trustees revoked the said licence and called upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises, the said defendant in writing agreed to vacate the said premises on the expiry of the month of February, 1975. It is further alleged that since then, from time to time on some plea or other the defendant failed and neglected to vacate the suit premises and sought for extension of time from the said trustees for the purpose of vacating the same trustees in view of the close relationship extended such time. On April, 1977, the defendant again agreed to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the month of July, 1977. But this time too he failed and neglected to vacate the suit premises. .Before sale of the aforesaid house, the trustees called upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises but instead of vacating the same, on coming to know about the sale of the aforesaid premises in favour of the present plaintiff by the then trustees, the defendant with some ulterior motive to claim a tenancy right in respect of the suit premises sent a money order of Rs. 50/- to one of the trustees, namely, Prakash Kumar Ghosh who refused the said money order, and clearly informed the defendant that they had sold the said property to the present plaintiff. It is further alleged that on 25.8.93 the present plaintiff also issued a letter to the defendant calling upon him to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises, since the said licence had already been revoked. But in spite of receipt of such letter, the plaintiff sent a money order of Rs. 50/- to the plaintiff making a futile attempt to establish a tenancy right in respect of the suit property. Hence the suit.

(3.) Both the suits were contested by the respective defendant on a written statement denying the material allegations and asserting their respective cases as seen above. The learned Judge 10th Bench of the City Civil & Sessions Court, Calcutta by a common judgement dated 18.12.2000 dismissed T. S. No. 1820/ 93 filed by the appellant and decreed T. S. No. 2375/93 filed by the respondent, passing a decree for recovery of khas possession against the appellant in respect of the properties described in the schedule of the plaint. A decree of damages at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day from the date of decree till the defendant gives up possession of the suit property has also been passed.