Arun Kumar Mitra, J - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of remand dated 17.4.96 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Malda in title appeal No. 20/1994 reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.1.94 passed by the learned Munsif of the Second Court at Malda in title suit No. 214/1989. The suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit for eviction and recovery of possession in respect of the suit premises.
(2.) The case has been made out by the plaintiffs (appellants herein) in the plaint is inter alia as follows:- The plaintiffs No. 1 Harani Bibi has purchased the suit property from one Niranjan Das and has become right title and interest holder of the said suit property. Plaintiff No. 2 Siddique Hosain is the husband of the plaintiff No. 1. After purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 constructed four rooms having pucca construction and one room with wooden construction. In the year 1984, the defendant was inducted by the plaintiff in the suit room which was granted to the defendant for business purpose for three years. In pursuance of the written agreement executed on 30.7.84, the suit room was given to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- p.m. The defendant started a cycle repairing shop in the said suit room and started continuing his business over there. After the expiry of the said period, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit room. But the defendant refused to acceded to the said request of the plaintiffs. After 30th July, the defendant did not pay any money to the plaintiffs for user of the suit premises. According to the plaintiffs after the expiry of the period mentioned in the agreement the defendant has been continuing there as trespasser and he is liable to eviction. The plaintiff's own house has been damaged and the plaintiffs want the suit premises for extension of their business and they want to construct a room contiguous to the suit premises and if that room is constructed then the passage to that roont will be only through the suit room presently occupied by the defendant.
(3.) Since the defendant did not vacate the suit premises, the plaintiffs through their learned Advocate served a notice dated 1.11.89 which the defendant has received on 2.11.89. Through the said notice the plaintiffs have asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises within 30 days. The plaintiffs have come to know that the defendant has filed a petition under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the plaintiffs before the learned SDEM Malda. After receiving the notice the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and as such, the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for eviction. The cause of action of the suit has arisen on 3.12.89 and after the expiry of the period mentioned in the agreement after 30th July, 1987. The plaintiffs at the presentation of the plaint valued the suit at Rs. 1560/- and paid advalorem Court fees in terms of Section 7(XIII) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act.;