BIBEK MOTORS Vs. PYARIMOHAN AND PRAMILA TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order (Annexure-6) dated 22.5.2010 of the Ad hoc Additional District Judge, (Fast Track-I), Cuttack in F.A.O. No. 30 of 2010 in reversing the decision of the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), 1 st Court, Cuttack in I.A. No. 125 of 2010 arising out of C.S. No. 137 of 2010.

(2.) The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:-

(3.) The present opposite party, Pyarimohan & Pramila Trust (for short, P.P. Trust) represented through its Managing Trustee contested the suit in the Court below by filing written statement/counter claim wherein while admitting the fact that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of shop room no.2 by P.P.Trust in the year 2001 inter alia pleaded that the tenancy of the petitioner came to an end with the expiry of the lease period on 30.04.2008. It is the further case of the Opposite Party that the possession of the suit shop room by the petitioner after the expiry of the lease period on 30.04.2008 is illegal and not recognized in the eye of law and the petitioner is a trespasser. It is also the case the Opposite Party that Binod Kumar Samantaray was not authorized by the trustees to enter into any agreement with the petitioner and he was also not authorized to collect rent from the petitioner. Accordingly when because of nonpayment of house rent and electricity energy charges, notice under Section 106 of the Transfer Property Act was served on the petitioner to avoid eviction, the Petitioner by creating some forged documents has filed the suit and prayed for injunction mischievously.