BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) This first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession and is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 25th June 2003 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1616 of 1999 thereby passing a decree of declaration that the defendant therein was a licensee in respect of the suit property and permanent injunction restraining him from running any coaching centre in the suit room or from using the suit room for business purpose. The learned trial Judge further passed a decree for Khas possession in favour of the plaintiff by evicting the defendant.
(2.) The respondent filed the aforesaid suit being Title Suit No. 1616 of 1999 thereby praying for declaration that the appellant was a licensee in respect of the suit premises and his licence had been duly revoked and that he was not entitled to use the said room for running coaching centre or for any business purpose with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from running coaching centre in the suit room or using the property for any business purpose or from handing over the same to any third party. The respondent further prayed for recovery of Khas possession of the suit property by evicting the appellant therefrom.
(3.) The case made out by the plaintiff may be summarised thus : (a) The plaintiff is one of the Trustees of Smt. Rakshkali Dasi Trust Estate and by virtue of such Office as Trustee, he is entitled to reside in the property and accordingly, he is residing there with his family. The other two trustees are staying outside Calcutta. (b) The defendant was a private tutor of the son of the plaintiff and while the defendant was such a private tutor, he was accommodated in a room situated in the ground floor of the suit building and the defendant became residential private tutor of the son of the plaintiff and thus, the status of the defendant was that of a mere licensee, such license being given in consideration of the defendant's service as private tutor of the son of the plaintiff. (c) After the conclusion of the career of the plaintiffs son as a student, the defendant approached the plaintiff from time to time to extend the period of license for using and occupying the said room and considering the good relation between the parties, the plaintiff extended the said licence from time to time free of cost. Taking undue advantage of the said licence, the defendant started teaching a few students in the said room. On protest by the plaintiff, the defendant assured him to discontinue private teaching but could not keep the promise. (d) As the defendant continued to use and occupy the said room and converted the same to a coaching centre, the plaintiff urged the defendant to vacate the room and shift his coaching centre from the said room. The defendant, however, took shelter of a political party. (e) Having no other alternative, the plaintiff by a notice dated 28th June, 1999 sent through an advocate revoked the said licence and called upon the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the room immediately, but in spite of such notice, the defendant refused to vacate. Hence the suit.;