FEROJUDDIN MULLICK AND OTHERS Vs. HIREN ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit 854/68 and Title Suit 685/69 of the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The aforesaid suits were disposed of by a common judgment. The appeals have been heard analogously and this judgment shall govern both of them.

(2.) Title Suit No. 854/68 was instituted by Hiren Roy Chowdhury (hereinafter called the plaintiff) against Ferojuddin Mallik, his father Jehangir Mallik and one Sadik Mallik (hereinafter called defendants). The dispute relates to a stall being stall No. A/1 in the Maidan Market Corner, Calcutta. The stalls in the market are held by different persons on the basis of licenses granted by the P. W. D. of the Govt, of West Bengal. The plaintiff's case in short is as follows:-

(3.) Plaintiff is a licensee of stall No. A/1 by virtue of an agreement made between the Govt, and the plaintiff and has been in possession at all material limes by payment of the license fees, regularly. As the plaintiff was unable to devote whole time attention to the business carried on in the said stall, he had engaged the defendant Ferojuddin Mallik to look after the business. By holding out prospects of securing credit facilities to improve the business, defendant No. 1 induced the plaintiff to sign a letter of surrender of the license in favour of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff in good faith and in a hurry signed the said letter in the greater interest of the business. Later on, plaintiff came to know that in view of the terms of agreement with the Govt, he had no right to transfer his rights or privileges under the agreement to any body or to permit anybody to use the said stall or part with possession thereof. On coming to know of such restrictions the plaintiff forthwith withdrew the letter of surrender. This enraged the defendants and they have been trying to cause mischief to the plaintiff in various ways with a view to oust him from the stall Defendant No. 1, on the strength of the letter of surrender made attempts to be recognised as the licensee of the stall. The attempt having proved abortive, Defendant No. 1 and his men are trying to create disturbances to plaintiff's possession, cause waste to the assets of the plaintiff and injuriously affect the smooth running of the business. On such allegations, the plaintiff asked for the followings reliefs namely (1) declaration that the letter of surrender dated 27.4. 1968 in favour of defendant No. 1 is illegal invalid, void and not binding on the plaintiff and (2) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their associates and agents from entering into the said stall No. A/1 or in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession ;