Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) THE plaintiffs seek a decree for possession of a flat and a car parking space at premises No. 3, Middleton Row, Kolkata - 700071. The plaintiffs also seek mesne profits and damages from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, Late Smt. Sita Chakraborty was the owner of the flat and car parking space in question. She had executed her last Will and testament on October 10, 1995 by which she had devised and bequeathed her assets and properties including the flat and car parking space in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 2 was appointed as the executor of such Will. The plaintiff No. 1 had obtained a probate in respect of the Will dated October 10, 1995 of Late Smt. Sita Chakraborty on September 20, 1996. The plaintiffs had caused their Advocate to issue a letter dated November 22, 1996 to the defendant No. 4 which is the society in which the flat and the car parking space is located, as to their right, title and interest in respect of the flat and the car parking space. According to the plaintiffs, the claim of tenancy made by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit premises by virtue of an alleged tenancy agreement entered into by the defendant No. 3 with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is without any basis. According to the plaintiffs, the probate of a Will dated September 15, 1995 granted in favour of the defendant No. 3 on December 18, 1996 was revoked on February 5, 1998. The alleged tenancy was created on February 28, 1997. The creation of the tenancy is bad. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not derive any title through the defendant No. 3 as the defendant No. 3 had no title in respect of the flat or the car parking space. The plaintiffs claim mesne profits from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for wrongful occupation of the flat and the car parking space. The plaintiffs also claim damages from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for damages caused to the flat and the car parking space. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are contesting the instant suit. They have filed a written statement. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 claim that, they are bona fide tenants without notice of the probate granted in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. According to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant No. 3 had a valid probate existing in his favour on February 28, 1997 when the tenancy was created. Subsequent revocation of the probate would not affect the right of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as the tenants of the suit premises. The plaintiffs have to treat the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as lawful tenants in respect of the flat and the car parking space. The plaintiffs not having issued a valid notice terminating such tenancy, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the decree for possession or a decree for eviction or any other relief as prayed for in the suit.
(3.) THE issues in the instant suit settled on June 24, 2015 are as follows: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises as described in Schedule annexed to the plaint? 2. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for damages of Rs. 50,000/ - against the defendant Nos. 1 & 2? 3. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for mesne profits of Rs. 21,75,000/ - against the defendant Nos. 1 & 2? 4. Did the defendant No. 3 have any right to induct the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in the suit premises?;