GIRDHARLAL GOVINDJI Vs. PRVIN CHANDRA OCHHAVLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS litigation is all over a northeastern room inside of a four-roomed flat on the fourth floor of 44, Ezra Street, Calcutta, also known as 44/45 Ezra Street and shortened hereafter into "44".

(2.) THE plaintiff Girdharlal Govindji, hereinafter referred to as Girdharlal, who is the tenant of the flat just mentioned, seeks to recover possession of the aforesaid room on a twofold ground-one being an alternative to the other. First: late in 1954 or early in 1955, the defendant Pravin Chandra Ochhavlal, (shortened hereafter into Ochhavlal ). who was living with his father and other members of the family in a two-roomed flat on the same floor of the same house: "44", was granted leave and license without any license foe to occupy the room in controversy occasionally. The plaint by its third paragraph does not go as far as that specifying the year. But Girdharlal's evidence does, [see, for example, question no. 27 and his answer thereto. ] By notices, first verbally early in June 1962 and thereafter in writing on September 14, 1962, Girdharlal revoked the said leave and license. The latter one called upon Ochhavlal to vacate the disputed room on the expiry of October 1962. Second: should the decision be that there was a tenancy instead of a licence, even that stood determined by the notice dated September 14, 1962 paragraph 11 of the plaint. More, Girdharlal reasonably requires the room for his own occupation. Recovery of possession of the room in controversy is grounded so.

(3.) THERE is still another mentionable relief Girdharlal prays the Court for: a decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2 a day from November 1, 1962, "until recovery of possession".