AMAL KUMAR CHAND Vs. NEHAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard Mr. Manna, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party and considering the facts and circumstances of the case dispose of the Civil Order in the following manner.

(2.) Undoubtedly the opposite party is a tenant of the Premises No. 4A, Little Russel Street, Calcutta. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the eldest son of the opposite party and lives with the opposite party with his family in the same premises. The opposite party brought the Suit No. 8475/8 in the Court of Small Causes Court, Calcutta against the petitioner for his eviction from the suit premises under Sec. 4-Lead with Sec. 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act alleging the petitioner was a licensee under him. The case as made out by the opposite party in the plaintiff inter alia, was that he had given permission to the petitioner to use a portion of the suit premises with his family as licensee under him hut as the relation between two became so strained, that the opposite party felt unsafe and insecure to live with the petitioner and his family under the same roof, and he revoked the said license by his letter dated 26.9.1983 and asked the petitioner to vacate the suit premises, but the petitioner did not vacate. The petitioner in his written statement, however, denied and disputed inter alia, the statements of the opposite party as made in the plaint and he further asserted that he was an obedient son of the opposite party and was not occupying the suit premises as a licensee but staying therein as a member of the petitioner's family. The learned Judge, 5th Bench, Small Causes Court by his judgment dated 5.9.1985 allowed the said application under Sec. 41 read with Sec. 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act holding inter alia, that the petitioner was a license under the opposite party in respect of the suit premises and his licensee having been revoked, the petitioner was liable to be evicted and the opposite party was entitled to get a decree of this possession in respect of the suit premises, against the petitioner. Against the said judgment and order the petitioner has moved this Honourable Court in revision and obtained the present Civil Order.

(3.) Painfully held that the dispute between the father and the son. Ordinarily it is expected that the son while living with the father in the same premises is to honour the father and to give him due respect in all matters but from the materials on record before me it appears that the relationship between the two was not at all congenial. Under the law the opposite party is entitled to file a suit for eviction of his son from the premises which the opposite party enjoy as the sole tenant as in the eye of law occupation of the son in the premises by the father as a tenant would be no better than licensee. I tried to see if good sense could prevail upon the parties especially the opposite party in the matter and if the dispute could be amicably resolved but in vain as I find that the opposite party is adamant because of the unruly behaviour of the petitioner and his family which has been substantiated by the learned Advocate for the opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I therefore have no other alternative but to accept the findings arrived at by the learned Judge of the Court below and I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Order is thus dismissed without any order as to costs. Let this order be communicated to the Court below forthwith. Prayer for stay of operation of this order as made by Mr. Manna is refused. Civil Order dismissed.