SK AZAD ALI Vs. TAPAN KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 18th September, 2017 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Other Appeal No. 8 of 2014 affirming the judgement and decree dated 18th December, 2012 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Tamluk in Other Suit No. 50 of 2007, at the instance of the defendant/appellant.

(2.) Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or not.

(3.) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/appellant by treating him as a tenant under the Premises Tenancy Act. Such suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and for reasonable requirement. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed written statement contending therein that initially he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by the father of the plaintiff but subsequently by virtue of a registered indenture of lease dated 30th April, 1999, he was allowed to continue his possession in the suit premises for the purpose of running his manufacturing business (saw mill). It was further contended that the parties agreed that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act will not apply to the tenancy and such agreement was also recorded in the said indenture of lease. The defendant thus, contended that the suit which was filed against him for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, is not maintainable. He thus, claimed that the suit should be dismissed.