- (1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has considered the relevant materials on record. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows: The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for eviction being Title Suit No. 251 of 2000 and such suit was placed before the learned First Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandannagore. The plaintiff/appellant, in the said suit, prayed for a decree for eviction against the defendant/respondent and recovery of khas possession. The said suit was brought by the plaintiff/appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent on the part of the defendant/respondent, nuisance and annoyance caused by the defendant/respondent, reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff/appellant and also sub -letting of the suit premises by the defendant/respondent in favour of a third party.
(2.) The defendant/respondent contested the said suit denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The said suit came up for hearing when the learned Trial Court by its judgement and decree dated 31st January, 2002 decreed the said suit only on the ground that the defendant/respondent was found to have sublet the suit premises in favour of a third party. The defendant/respondent preferred Title Appeal No. 71 of 2002 challenging the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and the said Title Appeal was placed before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Second Court, Chandannagore. The learned First Appellate Court by its judgement and decree dated 15th December, 2005 allowed the said Title Appeal and set aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and, thus, the suit was dismissed.
(3.) The plaintiff/appellant, challenging the impugned judgement and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, has preferred the present Second Appeal which was admitted for hearing by an order dated 25th July, 2007 passed by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The instant Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law "(a) whether the learned Court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in reversing the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial judge on the ground of subs -letting by totally overlooking the admission of the tenant/defendant that he was in service, and that he knew that for the purpose of running a business of selling rice, trade licence is required to be taken from Municipality which he took when he used to run the business for selling tea; (b) In the absence of any document produced by the tenant/defendant that he has Municipal trade licence for running the business for selling rice coupled with the fact that he is in service, whether the learned court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in not drawing adverse inference against the tenant/defendant for non -production of trade licence for selling rice";