- (1.) Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiffs/appellants have failed to prove the case of inducting the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents
(2.) as permissive occupants without any license fee/charges. It is a specific case of the plaintiffs/appellants that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents was permitted to occupy the suit premises as licensee after it was surrendered by the erstwhile tenant namely P. Kapoor. It is further alleged in the plaint that though the occupation was made for a temporary period but even after the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, they continued to be in occupation and ultimately, by a notice issued to them, they were asked to vacate and hand over possession thereof. Since they failed to comply with the requisitions made in the said notice, the suit was filed for recovery of possession upon revocation of license.
(3.) The defendants/respondents took a specific plea that the entire second floor of the premises no. 7, Clerk Street, PS - Ballygunge, Kolkata - 700026, was let out to a partnership firm namely M/s. Kapoor and Chawla as monthly tenant in the year 1970 and after dissolution of the partnership firm, the individual partners were inducted in the respective portion of the entire second floor upon issuance of the rent receipts by the mother of the present plaintiffs. It is further stated that initially both the partners namely, P. Kapoor and S. Chawla used to occupy the northern and southern portion of the second floor and after the dissolution of the firm, the rent receipts were issued by the landlord in respect of their respective portions and, therefore, the story of license is concocted and purely mythical.;