- (1.) The plaintiff claims a decree for eviction against the first defendant on the basis of what has been pleaded in the written statement of such defendant. The plaintiff suggests that for the determination of a lease or a tenancy by a lessee or a tenant to be complete, it is imperative that possession of the premises be handed over to the lessor or the landlord. The plaintiff insists that since it is admitted in the first defendant's written statement that possession was not made over by the first defendant to the plaintiff and possession was, in fact, made over to the third defendant as a sub-tenant, the plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession and there is no disputed fact that needs to be carried to a protracted trial.
(2.) At the relevant time, the first defendant was a tenant in respect of a flat or office space at a well-known landmark on Chowringhee under the plaintiff. The second defendant, at the material time, was the owner of the entirety of the building. The third defendant is the present occupant of the concerned office premises, having come into possession thereof as a sub-tenant of the first defendant.
(3.) The plaintiff refers to the written statements filed by the three defendants and the consistent case therein that possession of the premises had not been surrendered by the first defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff says that the entire mala fide exercise has been orchestrated at the behest of the second defendant. The insinuation is that there must have been substantial extraneous consideration for the first defendant to have removed itself from the relevant premises and allowed the third defendant in. The plaintiff suggests that it is inconceivable that the third defendant came to be ultimately in possession of the premises merely on the strength of the transaction that has been pleaded or what appears on paper. The plaintiff hints that the three defendants, particularly the first and the second, colluded with each other to effectively dispossess the plaintiff otherwise than in accordance with law and the statements in the written statements entitle the plaintiff to a judgment on admission.;