Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) :- The present revision is directed against the order dated 3.12.1998 passed by the Ld. Full Bench of the 5th Bench of the Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta reversing the judgment & decree dated 22.5.98 passed by the Ld. 5th Bench of the Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in suit No. 90/1996.
(2.) The petitioner's case is that the O.Ps. instituted suit No. 90/96 against him in the Presidency Small Causes, Court, Calcutta for recovery of arrear of rents in respect of rooms at premises No. 503, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta - 700 004 contending that their predecessor-in-interest Rashbehari Mondal inducted the petitioner in the rooms with vacant land at the said premises as a premises tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 100/- and after his death, the O.Ps. as joint landlords & owners realised rents from him and that the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent despite demands from Magh, 1398 B.S. thus the total amount of arrear rents being Rs. 4112.50 p. The petitioner's contention was that after his induction on a piece of land as a thika tenant at the said premises by Rashbehari he erected structures thereon consisting of several rooms and on promulgation of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 the said piece of land vested in the State of West Bengal and he became a tenant under the State of West Bengal and paid rents at the enhanced rate up-to-date. His name was recorded in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation as owner of the structure. The O.Ps. amended the plaint incorporating that the said premises was formerly known as 262, Rabindra Sarani (formerly Lower Chitpur Road), that Sudharani Dey was the thika tenant and the petitioner was a Bharatia. Rashbehari Mondal, landlord & owner of the land, by virtue of an order of eviction passed in T.T. Case No. 8/1996 by the Small Causes Court at Calcutta against the said thika tenant took possession of the land and structure on 16.5.66 and the petitioner was accepted as a premises tenant and the agreement thereof was recorded in the Bailiff's return. It was contended by the petitioner that premises N. 503 & 262 are not the same and identical. The said suit was dismissed by the Ld. 5th Judge of the said Court by judgment & decree dated 22.5.98, but on an application preferred by the O.Ps. u/s. 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, the Ld. Full Bench reversed the said judgment on 3.12.98. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.
(3.) All that now requires to be considered is whether the Ld. Court below was justified in passing the said order. Since none appeared on behalf of the O.Ps., the application was heard ex parte.;