SANJOY KUMAR SETT Vs. DHARAMRAJ PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present controversies invite the Court not only to narrate the scope of the provisions contained in Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure but also a distinction to be drawn between the said provision and the provisions contained in Rule 6 of Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of Calcutta High Court. Before proceeding to address the issue as indicated above, the salient features of facts involved in this case are required to be adumbrated herein below.

(2.) The plaint case simply proceeds that the plaintiff promoted a company by the name of Globe Forex and Travel Limited with the registered office at 100, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071, and employed various persons including the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in the said company. The said premises is owned by an official trustee, Govt. of West Bengal and let out the upper flat, east suite along with two garages, one kitchen and five godowns to be used for sevants at a monthly rent which was enhanced from time to time and at the time of filing the suit the plaintiff was paying a rent of Rs. 2662.00 per month according to the English calendar. Though the rent receipt does not indicate the godowns but it was all along used for the purpose of residence of the servants having located at the backside of the said premises. Since, the defendants did not have a place of residence and having employed by the plaintiff in the said company, permitted them to stay in one of such godowns primarily used as servant's quarter purely on permissive occupation. On 9th April, 2013 the plaintiff sold his controlling block of shares in the said company to one Ramkrishna Forgings Limited who subsequently transferred the registered office of the said company from the said premises to another premises and duly notified the same with the Registrar of Companies.

(3.) On October 30, 2013 the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the said servant's quarter as they were no longer in employment of the plaintiff and an assurance was given to him that they would vacate it shortly. Since they failed to honour such assurance a General Diary was lodged with the local police station and subsequently a notice was issued terminating the license which was duly received by the defendants. It is averred in the plaint that the defendants have no right to remain in occupation after the withdrawal of the permission and having failed to do so the present suit is filed not only for recovery of possession but also for mesne profit.