PRABHAT KUMAR DIDWANIA Vs. JUTHIKA NATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta on 26th June, 2007 in Title Suit No.458 of 1998, by which Learned Judge dismissed the suit. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the said suit against the defendants/respondents praying for eviction, recovery of possession of the suit premises, permanent injunction and mesne profit.

(2.) One Rajaranglal Didwania, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff inducted one Debdas Nath, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants as tenant in one room in the basement floor of Block-B in Premises No.76, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta at a monthly rental of Rs.250/- for running a printing press by executing one deed of lease on 6th July, 1954. The lease deed was made effective for a period of 16 years from 1st August, 1954 to 31st July, 1970. Rajaranglal Didwania died on 9th August, 1965 leaving behind his only son Purushottam Didwania as legal heir. Purushottam Didwania instituted one partition suit bearing no.1848 of 1964 against his co-sharers in the High Court at Calcutta. During the pendency of the said suit Purushottam Didwania died and the plaintiff was substituted in the said suit as legal heir of Purushottam Didwania. The plaintiff got the suit premises by virtue of the decree of the said partition suit. The defendant did not make payment of rent in respect of the suit premises to the plaintiff or the receiver appointed by the High Court in the partition suit after expiry of the term of lease deed on 31st July, 1970. It is alleged that the defendant was in wrongful occupation of the suit premises with effect from 1st August, 1970 without making payment of rent of the suit premises. On 12th March, 1998 the plaintiff came to learn that the defendant collected building materials for construction of small rooms on the suit premises and thereafter the plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant.

(3.) The original defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were substituted as defendants. The specific contention of the defendants is that they are in uninterrupted possession of the suit premises after expiry of the term of lease on 31st July, 1970 till the date of institution of the suit on 16th March, 1998. The specific plea taken by the defendants is that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the plaintiff has not taken any step for recovery of possession of the suit premises or renewal of the term of lease or collection of rent from the defendants within a period of 12 years from the date of expiry of the term of lease on 31st July, 1970. The defendants have specifically pleaded before the trial court that they are in possession of the suit premises by asserting ownership with the knowledge of the plaintiff continuously from 1st August, 1970 till the date of institution of the suit on 16th March, 1998 i.e. more than 12 years and thereby they have acquired title in the suit premises by way of adverse possession.