NAGENDRA NATH LAHIRI Vs. BIDYUT KUMAR BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment instituted by the Manager of a Court of Wards representing the Appellants. The subject-matter of dispute was premises No. 105, Alipore Road, which admittedly bore a rental of Rs. 175 per month. It is not disputed that the Appellants are the landlords of the disputed premises. At the time of the institution of the suit their estate was under the management of Court of Wards. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the Court of Wards released charge of their estate and the memorandum of appeal was corrected on that basis.

(2.) In the trial court the Plaintiffs prayed for ejectment of the Defendant Respondent on several grounds. But it appears that. the trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on one ground, that the landlords had no reasonable requirement for the premises. A contention was also raised in the trial court that Section 55 of the Court of Wards Act, 1879, was a bar to the suit inasmuch as necessary permission had not been obtained by the Manager authorising him to institute the suit by some order of the Court as required by Section 55 of the Act in question. On this point the trial court held in favour of the Plaintiffs Appellants. The suit was, however, dismissed by the trial court and an appeal was preferred by the landlords. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal came to a different finding from the trial court on the question of reasonable requirement holding that the premises were reasonably required by the landlords for their own occupation. On the other question, viz., whether Section 55 of the Court of Wards Act was a bar to the suit the learned subordinate Judge took a different view from the trial court holding that in the absence of the requisite permission the suit was not maintainable. In that view of the matter the appeal was dismissed. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the landlords from the above judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court.

(3.) Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that requisite permission had not been obtained by the Manager of the Court of Wards authorising him by an order of the Court to institute a suit. Mr. Sinha submitted that a letter was produced on behalf of the Appellants which was marked Ex. 4(a) in the trial court and which showed that requisite permission had been given by the Commissioner to institute the suit before its actual institution. This letter however, purports to show that the alleged permission was forwarded by the Collector to the Manager, Court of Wards in original. It is somewhat curious why the permission itself is not forthcoming. I cannot say that in the absence of the original permission the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Manager was not duly authorised to institute the suit. At the same time I am not unmindful of the fact that there is no reason to doubt about the authenticity or genuineness of the letter marked Ex. 4(a). As mention is made in that letter about the permission of the Commissioner, I think an opportunity should be given to the Appellants to produce the so called permission in its original before the lower appellate Court and to have it formally proved. If it is missing, then an authentic copy of the permission may also be proved. I am therefore inclined to remand the appeal to the lower Appellate Court for taking evidence on this question and if the Appellants succeed in proving the permission either in its original or an authentic copy of it, then it will decree the appeal, unless, of course, the suit of the Appellants fails for another reason which I shall mention later on.