MALIRAM JOSHI Vs. RAMJILAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner has applied under Sec. 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act in the court of Small Causes, Calcutta for recovery of possession of a room in the third floor of premises No. 7 Burtalla Street, Calcutta from the opposite party. His case is that the said premises belong to a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakashara school of Hindu Law of which he was the Karta and the manager. The opposite party has been alleged to be a near relation of the petitioner. It has been claimed that the opposite party was granted leave and license to use and occupy one room on the third floor of the said premises No. 7 Burtolla Street and that the said license had been revoked and/or withdrawn by a letter dated 11th Feb. 1975. The defendant had failed to vacate the room. Hence the plaintiff has prayed for recovery of possession.

(2.) The opposite party in his written statement has denied the above allegations. He has inter alia stated that he is a tenant in respect of the said room under Mahanands Ramju Rameswar Joshi at a rent of Rs. 10-per month payable according to Hindi calender. The opposite party's case is that the petitioner is not entitled to recover possession.

(3.) The opposite party filed an application purported to be under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Chapter XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Manual praying for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to restore the supply of electricity of one light and one fan to the disputed room which was disconnected on June 2, 1975. The petitioner opposed the said prayer for mandatory injunction made by the opposite party. The petitioner however, did not dispute that during the pendency of the above proceeding, he had disconnected supply of electricity to the disputed room. He claimed that the opposite party was a licensee and the said license had already been revoked. The use of the electricity by the opposite party was permissive and the said permission had been already withdrawn after due warning to the opposite party, who had been using electricity for the purpose of operating iron, heater etc. The petitioner contended that the opposite party had no right or locus standi to enforce in the Small Causes Court his right to use electricity. The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the said application for mandatory injunction was also questioned.