RIDH KARAN SHARMA Vs. SRI NAND KISHORE THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the time when the matter is called on for hearing, an adjournment is sought on behalf of the opposite parties. Such prayer is opposed on behalf of the petitioners in view of the fact that adjournment had been granted on the previous occasion as well.

(2.) As such, the revisional application is taken up for hearing. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the court below acted without jurisdiction in directing a certified copy of a lease deed to be directly marked as Exhibit 2 in connection with a proceeding under Sections 17 (2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It is argued that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties, in his written statement, had admitted that the said defendant was inducted by the plaintiffs/present petitioners in the suit property as a monthly premises tenant. In such view of the matter, it is argued that the certified copy of the deed of lease now sought to be produced, becomes redundant. Since by producing the same, the opposite parties take a contrary stand to their own admission, as regards direct tenancy having admittedly been given to the opposite parties under the superior landlord after the expiry of the lease of the present petitioners.

(3.) It is next argued that previously the superior landlord had sought to implead himself as a party to the present suit, which was turned down by an order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated January 24, 1997 passed in C.O. No.1389 of 1995. Learned senior counsel places reliance on certain findings in such order which say that if there is any dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant in the instant suit, that should be decided according to the materials on record. It is argued that since the premise of the prayer for addition of party by the superior landlord was that a direct tenancy had been given to the predecessor-in-interest of the present opposite parties and the contention was turned down by this Court, the same question could not be agitated again by marking the certified copy of the deed of lease as an exhibit.