VIJAY KUMAR RAIJADA Vs. RATAN KUMAR SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2013 in T.S. 1239 of 2006 passed by learned Judge, VIIth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, the present appeal being F.A. 239 has been preferred by the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as defendant for convenience) against whom a decree for eviction was passed by learned trial Court upon declaration that he was a trespasser to the demised premises. The defendant was also directed to give vacant possession of the premises in question within three months from the date of order and to pay mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ - p.m. for his illegal occupation of the said premises.

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff/respondent is summarized as follows: - The plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff for convenience), at whose instance the decree of eviction was passed, stated in his plaint of T.S. 1239 of 2006 that the premises referred to in the schedule of the plaint originally belonged to one Tilok Chand Surana and on his death, his legal heirs i.e. two sons Hanslal and Himmatraj and the legal heirs of a predeceased son Bachraj (i.e. Chand Kumari Devi & Abhoy Sing Surana) became the owners. Subsequently in 1978, by virtue of a deed of partition, the suit premises was allotted to Chand Kumari Devi. The defendant/appellant herein was a monthly tenant in respect of one tin shed go -down, situated in the back portion of the undivided premises no. 3 Mangoe Lane and after the allotment of entire back portion to Smt. Chand Kumari Devi, the defendant surrendered his tenancy right, in respect of the premises subsequently numbered as 3/1A Baretto Lane, on 30.11.1981 as he agreed to continue his tenancy right in respect of the front portion of the premises at 3A Mangoe Lane. After getting vacant possession of the back portion of the premises (numbered as 3/1A Baretto Lane), Chand Kumari Devi constructed a four storeyed building and was in possession and enjoyment of the same till her death on 18.03.1993. Previously said Chand Kumari Devi executed a will in respect of the said property in favour of the plaintiff, who happens to be the wife of her son Abhoy Singh Surana, and, Chand Kumari appointed her son Abhoy Singh as executor of the said will. In the year 1993, the probate of the will was granted by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property but it was looked after and managed by said Abhoy Singh Surana till June, 2004, till the property was handed over to the plaintiff for its development and enjoyment. Since there was a long standing good relationship between the parties, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to keep his business articles in a newly constructed incomplete hall measuring 900 sq. ft. at 3/1A Baretto Lane without monetary consideration with a condition that the defendant would surrender possession of the said room by removing all the articles, whenever desired by the plaintiff. The defendant started possessing the said room taking advantage of such good relationship with the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to quit and vacate the suit premises as per agreed terms and conditions, as the same was urgently required by the plaintiff for her own use and occupation and for carrying on business by her son but as the defendant did not pay heed to her request that prompted her to take recourse of the Court, seeking redress in terms of prayers of the plaint.