- (1.) This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 30, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 13 th Bench, Calcutta in Title Appeal No.81 of 2004 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated June 24, 2004 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Kolkata in Ejectment Suit No.639 of 2000.
(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.44 of 1994 (subsequently re-numbered as Ejectment Suit No.639 of 2000) against the defendant / respondent herein for ejectment, khas possession, injunction, mesne profits, etc. in respect of the premises in suit as described in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Presidency Small Causes Court and the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court decreed the said ejectment suit on the ground of reasonable requirement against the respondent. Being aggrieved, the defendant / respondent preferred a first appeal being Title Appeal No.81 of 2004 and the said appeal was allowed in part thereby dismissing the Ejectment Suit No.639 of 2000. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff / appellant has preferred this second appeal.
(3.) At the time of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., the following substantial question of law was framed for decision:- Whether the landlord having given to the tenant one month s notice expiring with a month of tenancy and having instituted the eviction suit after expiry of such period, the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below erred in law in dismissing the suit on the ground of absence of cause of action. ;