- (1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of the case, briefly, are follows: - The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises against the original defendant, Lalji Chowrasia. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 also prayed for mesne profits and compensation for damages. The said suit was registered as title suit and was placed before the learned 4th Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South). The suit property happens to be a portion of the ground floor flat consisting of three bed rooms with attached three bathrooms with modern fittings, sanitary privy, one store room, one kitchen, one dining room, one covered varandah in the front portion with grill in the premises , Hazra Road, P.S. Bhowanipore Kolkata 700026 . The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property in terms of a decree passed in title suit by the learned 4th Court of Assistant District Judge, Alipore on 17.3.88. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property but the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is not having any suitable accommodation and as such she requires the suit property for her own use and occupation. She has alleged that she is occupying one room on the second floor of the suit holding which is three storied building and the plaintiff s brother with his family are also residing on the second floor and a certain bank is a tenant in respect of the entire first floor. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff has been permitted to stay in one room only on the said floor by her brother but the plaintiff is having a bitter relationship with her brother s wife and, thus, the plaintiff wants to reside in the suit property which she has obtained by virtue of the said decree passed in T.S.. The plaintiff further alleged that if she can rearrange the suit premises and make provision for one room flat, the plaintiff will be able to augment a minimum income of rupees 2500/- per month by letting or leasing out such flat and the plaintiff does not have any other source of income except a paultry amount of rupees five hundred which she gets as her share in the rent collected from the tenant-bank. The plaintiff also alleged that the original defendant was guilty of causing damage to the suit premises.
(2.) The defendant contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit but also stated that although the plaintiff might have realised rent from the defendant and the defendant might have paid/deposited monthly rent in the name of the plaintiff yet there could not be any relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant did not dispute that the plaintiff and her brother with his family are residing on second floor of the suit holding but denied that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for own use and occupation. The defendant also disputed the plaintiff s claim of ownership of the suit premises on the basis of compromise decree passed in the said T.S.. It appears from the judgements of the learned Courts below that the defendant also filed a written statement. It may be recorded here that after the original defendant died the present appellants and the proforma respondents were substituted in place and stead of the original defendant.
(3.) The said suit came up for hearing when evidence was adduced on behalf of the respective parties.;