SYED MOHAMMED ATIQUE Vs. ARUP KUMAR TODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the decision of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Suit No. 1766 of 2001 the appellant has preferred this appeal. By its order dated 30th January, 2009 the City Civil Court decreed the suit for eviction filed by the Respondent No. 1. Both the appellant and Respondent No. 2 have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises within 60 days of the date of the order. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were before the Trial Court.

(2.) In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that he had let out a shop room being No. S-2 in premises No. 32, Ezra Street, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata - 700 001 to one Dawood Kaseem. He was inducted as a monthly tenant in the year 1950. The plaintiff received monthly rent from Dawood Kaseem for these premises till the month of April, 2001. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were the employees of Dawood Kaseem. As the rent was not paid after April, 2001, the plaintiff enquired with the defendants about the whereabouts of Dawood Kaseem. He was informed that Dawood Kaseem had expired many years earlier in his native village. The plaintiff therefore requested the defendants to inform him the names of the legal heirs of Dawood Kaseem and their whereabouts. The defendants however did not respond. The plaintiff therefore sought to evict the defendants by issuing a notice, as according to him they were in illegal and wrongful possession of the suit premises, being trespassers. The defendants claimed the right of tenancy in the suit premises though no proceedings were filed by them. As the defendants did not vacate the suit premises, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for eviction.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and contended in the written statement inter alia (i) that the suit was barred by limitation; (ii) that it was barred by Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; (iii) that the suit was barred for misjoinder of parties as the other co-owners had not been impleaded as plaintiffs; (iv) that the defendants were the legal heirs and representatives of Dawood Kaseem who was also known as Syed Mohammed Latif; (v) that the defendants being the sons of Dawood Kaseem had inherited the tenancy and were therefore not trespassers.