Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application is directed against an Order No. 28 dated 31st October 2014 and Order No. 39 dated 29th June 2015 passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 35 of 2014 by which the certified copy of the sale deed was not marked as exhibit but kept for identification and a subsequent application to adduce evidence by producing other witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner are rejected.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for recovery of vacant and khas possession of the suit premises on expiration of lease by efflux of time. Admittedly, the entire ground floor comprising of 1800 square feet at premises No. P -36, C.I.T.H.S -12 Scheme M -VII, Manicktala Main Road, Kolkata -700054 was demised unto and in favour of the opposite party No. 1 on the basis of indenture of lease dated 21st November 2000 for a period of five years with an option for renewal for a further period of five years at consolidated lease rent of Rs. 14,728/ -. The plaintiff/petitioner purchased the suit premises from the erstwhile owner who executed and registered a deed of sale on 30.3.2007 in the office of Additional Registrars of Assurance, Kolkata.
(3.) IT is alleged in the plaint that after the expiration of the initial term, the lease was not renewed as the erstwhile owner of the defendant/opposite party could not agree on mutual terms. By a letter dated 19th May 2007, the incident of acquiring the property by the plaintiff/petitioner was intimated to the defendant No. 2 which was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. By letter dated 6th August, 2007 the defendant No. 2 asked the plaintiff/petitioner to submit the title deed for verification so that the rent could be paid in respect of the demised premises. It is alleged that despite several discussions, the parties could not arrive at the consensus and subsequently the plaintiff/petitioner asked the defendant/opposite parties to vacate the premises. In the written statement, the defendants not only challenged the legality and validity of the sale deed having executed without following the terms and conditions as required under Transfer of Property Act but also averred that all attempts to get the renewal of the lease were exhausted either with the vendor of the defendant/opposite party and subsequent to purchase with the plaintiff/petitioner. However, the defendant denied to vacate the suit premises and maintained the stand to remain in possession.;