LALITA SEN Vs. INDIRA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. O. No. 4384 of 2006, C. O. No. 4385 of 2006, C. O. No. 4595 of 2006 and C. O. No. 4596 of 2006 are being disposed of by this common order as the parties are the same and all the applications have arisen out of the order dated 8th September, 2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 98 of 1997 and the order dated 10th november, 2006 passed in Title Suit No. 80 of 2004.

(2.) TITLE Suit No. 98 of 1997 was instituted by Smt. Abha Sen and Ors. against one Smt. Indira Ghosh praying for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground of expiry of the period of licence. According to the plaintiffs of the suit, leave and licence was granted by an agreement on 1 st august, 1994 for occupation of the defendant for a period of three years and the said period of three years expired with the expiry of 1st of August, 1997. The defendant in the written statement, inter alia, contended that she was a tenant in the suit premises under the plaintiffs and not a licensee in the ground floor and first floor of the premises No. 1/403, Gariahat Road. It was further contended that the plaintiffs were not the sole owners of the property. One khitish Chandra Sen was the owner who died intestate on 27th February, 1977 leaving two brothers Joytish Chandra Sen and Dr. Satish Chandra Sen. They became the joint owners of the premises on the death of Khitish Ch. Sen to the extent of 1/2 (half) share each. Joytish Ch. Sen executed a Will in respect of his share and died on 27th August, 1989. The plaintiffs were the legatees of the Will of the said Joytish Ch. Sen, while Dr. Satish Ch. Sen died intestate leaving his daughter Smt. Santa Shima Mitra Chenoy as his heir. Santa Shima mitra Chenoy died leaving a Will bequeathing her share to two sons namely, kamal Mitra Chenoy and Dilip Mitra Chenoy each of whom become owner to the extent of 1/4 (one fourth) share each in the property. Thus the plaintiffs have only undivided 50% share.

(3.) IN the suit for eviction, the defendant filed an application under order 6 Rule 17, C. P. C. wherein certain facts have been sought to be incorporated. The facts are that Ashok Kr. Basu said to be the constituted attorney of the present plaintiffs in this suit had filed a Title Suit being No. 106 of 1998 against Kamal Mitra Chenoy and Dilip Mitra Chenoy, grand-sons of late Satish Ch. Sen and in the said suit the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for an injunction before the learned Civil judge (Senior Division) 3rd Court, Alipore. The plaintiffs of that suit who are also the plaintiffs herein preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal being No. M. A. 244 of 1998 which is pending. In the said appeal Kamal Mitra Chenoy and Dilip mitra Chenoy filed a written objection contending, inter alia, that they namely, kamal Mitra Chenoy and Dilip Mitra Chenoy were the owners of the property to the extent of 50% share and the defendant of the present suit Smt. Indira ghosh is a tenant in the ground floor of the suit premises. It was further proposed to be added by way of amendment that in another title Suit being No. 39 of 2000 instituted before the learned Civil judge (Senior Division) 9th Court, Alipore against one Aroti Mukherjee, one Dinesh Ch. Sen former constituted attorney of the plaintiffs who inducted the present defendant as a tenant under the guise of leave and licence averred that Smt. Indira Ghosh, defendant herein used to pay rent by cheque. This is one part of the amendment.