BISWABANI PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RABINDRA NATH DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being a defendant in a suit for eviction being Eviction Suit no. T.S. 77 of 1981 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Howrah, filed an application for mandatory injunction restraining the plaintiff/landlord from surrendering the cinema licence which was held by the landlord. The learned trial Court disposed of the injunction application restraining the plaintiffs from doing anything including surrendering licence of the cinema house that would injure the business of the defendant no.1 with the observation that on the question of renewal of licence appropriate authority should decide the controversy. Aggrieved thereby the defendant/petitioner filed Misc. Appeal 46 of 2015 which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court holding inter alia that the documents filed by the petitioner did not show any signature on the licence and on other documents to show that both the parties were present at the time of inspection made by the Chartered Engineer. The learned Judge while dismissing the Miscellaneous Appeal also held that the appellant filed some documents showing that the report of inspection of cinema recording sight line dated 10.12.2013 and 16.11.2014 to show that the chartered engineer had inspected/recorded sight lines and it was followed up to 2014 and the certificates of Md. Sahzada and Pradip Kumar Bachar were also followed up to 16.04.2015 and 05.08.2014 (sic. 05.08.2015) and there was no bar for renewal of license. Against such an order passed in Miscellaneous Appeal the petitioner filed a revisional application before this Court. In the revisional application the petitioner raised inter alia the following grounds:

(2.) Upon consideration of all these grounds this Court while considering the issue rejected the revisional application holding inter alia that the order passed by the Appellate Court was an well reasoned order and that consideration was made upon relevant issues and the documents produced. This Hon'ble Court while rejecting of the revisional application also arrived at a finding that the documents which were considered by this Court as well as the First Appellate Court, according to the petitioner, were not the entire bunch of documents rather it is the petitioner's case in this review that he filed a firisti on 16.02.2015 which has been brought to the notice of the Court in CAN 2209 of 2018 filed on 13th April, 2018.

(3.) The ground no.1 of the Memorandum of Review says "For that the Hon'ble Judge has rejected the revision petition on an impression that two inspection reports for renewal of license are purely a copy of each other, which is apparently wrong on the face of record inasmuch as the documents at page nos. 52 and 76 being annexure 'B' and 'C' respectively are not the reports for renewal issued by the License Renewing Authority, those documents are report of inspection of cinema regarding sight lines, issued by the Chartered Engineer to be considered by the License Renewing Authority at the time of granting renewal of license."