RAGHUBIR PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. RAVI KUMAR SUREKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in Title Suit No. 16/2001, by the present petition, is challenging the order dated 29. 08. 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No. 1, Tinsukia (now Munsiff No. 1) refusing to stay further proceeding in the said suit by rejecting the application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding that the matter in issue in Title Suit No. 16/2001 and in Title Suit No. 15/2001 is not directly and substantially the same and the plaintiffs in both the suits are different.

(2.) THE present opposite parties instituted Title Suit No. 16/2001 against the present petitioner in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No. 1 at Tinsukia praying for his ejectment from suit premises and delivery of khass possession and also for recovery of arrear rent contending inter alia that the premises in which the petitioner has been carrying on his business originally owned by M/s Ramesh Chandra Chakraborty Trust Estate and the petitioner came to occupy the same as tenant under the said Trust, agreeing, amongst other, to pay rent @ Rs. 600/- per month according to English calendar, payable at the expiry of each month of tenancy; to keep the premises in good and habitable condition; not to sublet the same or any part thereof and to handover vacant possession thereof whenever he would be asked to do so by the landlord. It has further been contended that by a registered deed dated 02. 07. 2000 the said Trust created a 99 years lease in respect of certain properties including the suit premises in favour of the opposite parties/plaintiffs and handed over the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs and authorized them to use and utilize the same in any manner they like and, thereafter, the petitioner/defendant was informed about the execution of the lease deed by the opposite parties/plaintiffs asking him to attorn to the plaintiffs and similar letter was also sent by the Trust but inspite of that the petitioner/defendant neither pay any rent nor make any new agreement with the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises since the month of July, 2000 inspite of the demand. The opposite parties/plaintiffs also instituted the said suit on the ground of bonafide requirement. The petitioner, on receipt of the summons, entered appearance and filed written statement admitting that he is occupying the suit premises as tenant under the Trust but denied the due date of payment as alleged in the plaint. The defendant/petitioner also denied the execution of any lease deed by the trust in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite parties and has pleaded that in the month of March, 2001, the said Trust with its then President and Secretary instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 15/2001 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tinsukia against the opposite parties/plaintiffs praying for cancellation of the lease deed dated 02. 07. 2000 as well as for declaration that the order of mutation of Holding No. 2597 of Ward No. 11 (of which the suit premises is a part) passed on 05. 07. 2000 is illegal. The petitioner/defendant also contended in the written statement that there is no relationship of landlord and the tenant between him and the opposite parties and he is a tenant under the Trust.

(3.) TITLE Suit No. 15/2001 has been filed by M/s. Ramesh Chandra Chakraborty Trust Estate and by its President and Secretary, namely Sri Gauranga Ch. Chakraborty and Sri Nityananda Chakraborty respectively, against Sri Ravi Kr. Sureka and Sri Vinit Kr. Sureka (present opposite parties) and Sri Keshab Chakraborty, as main defendants and against M/s Friend and Company (Dibrugarh) Pvt. Ltd. , M/s. New Friend and Company as well as against Sri Raghubir Prasad Agarwal (the present petitioner) as proforma defendants for declaration and cancellation of the lease deed dated 02. 07. 2000, for issuance of precept and for recovery of khass possession and also for permanent injunction mainly contending that Sri Keshab Chakraborty, who at one point of time was a Secretary of the Trust, had no authority to execute a registered deed of lease on 02. 07. 2000 in favour of Sri Ravi Kr. Sureka and Sri Vinit Kr. Sureka (opposite parties in the present petition) as he was removed from the post of Secretary of the Trust vide resolution dated 18. 04. 1999 and as such from that date he had no authority to act as the Secretary of the Trust.