PRASANTA SETT Vs. ALO MOOKERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for declaration, eviction of licensee, recovery of possession and recovery of arrears of licence fees and is directed against the judgement and decree dated 30th July, 2005 passed by Learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No.535 of 2003, by which Learned Judge of the Court below decreed the suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case made out by the respondents as plaintiffs of the suit is that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, one Rash Behari Mookerjee since deceased was the absolute owner of premises no.33/B, Nanda Mullick Lane, Kolkata-700006 (hereinafter referred to as suit premises). Rash Behari Mookerjee inducted the appellant/defendant as licensee in the suit premises on execution of a deed of agreement on 27.07.1998. The defendant was permitted to occupy and use the suit premises for 120 months commencing from 01.08.1998 for business purpose, subject to payment of licence fees @ Rs.2,200/- per month on condition that the said licence fees would be enhanced @ 10% after completion of 60 months from the date of induction of the defendant as licensee in the suit premises. The defendant paid the licence fees till the month of April, 2000, but failed to pay the licence fees for use and occupation of the suit premises from the month of May, 2000, in spite of repeated request and reminders by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sent advocate's letter dated 17th February, 2003 to the defendant calling upon him to make payment of arrears of licence fees along with interest, but the defendant refused to receive the said letter sent by registered post with AD. The defendant started negotiating with the brokers of the locality for parting with the possession of the suit premises in favour of the third party and started shifting the materials kept by the defendant in the suit premises for the purpose of business.

(3.) The appellant being the defendant of the suit contested the suit by filing written statement whereby the defendant denied and disputed the material allegations made in the plaint. The specific case made out by the defendant in the pleading is that the defendant was inducted in the suit premises by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs as tenants on execution of deed of agreement dated 27.07.1998. The defendant paid the rent of the suit premises to the plaintiffs regularly up to the month of May, 2000. Thereafter, the plaintiffs refused to accept the rent of the suit premises from the defendant against proper rent receipt and as such the defendant stopped paying rent from the month of June, 2000. The defendant has claimed his right in the suit premises as tenant under the plaintiffs at a monthly rental of Rs.2,200/-, and the agreement executed between the parties on 27.07.1998 is virtually agreement of tenancy.