Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, S. Banerjee, JJ. - (1.) The appeal is directed against a common judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in two separate suits being Title Suit No. 376 of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the first suit) and Title Suit No. 209 of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the second suit). The first suit was filed by the appellant before us for declaration that he was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises whereas the second suit was filed by the respondents, Patwaris for eviction of the appellant on the ground of revocation of leave and licence granted in favour of the appellant. In both the suits the contesting defendants filed their respective written statements. In the first suit the Patwaris took the defence that the plaintiff had be- come a trespasser on revocation of licence. In the written statement in the second suit the defence taken was that the defendant was a monthly tenant and he was not liable to be evicted without due process of law. The suit was heard analogously but separate issues were framed by the learned Trial Judge. In the Title Suit No. 376 of 1992 the following issues were framed: 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 50.000/- to the defendant on 26.5.1989 and 2.6.1989 to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through defendant No. 3? 3. Whether plaintiff also incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- only towards finishing of the flat? 4. Whether there was any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to get declaration as a tenant as prayed for? 6. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?
(2.) In the Title Suit No 209 of 1995 the following issues were framed: 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Has there any cause of action for the suit? 3. Has the Court jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit? 4. Is the defendant No. 1 a licencee under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises for a stipulated period? 5. Is the defendant No. 1 illegally occupied the suit premises after the expiry of terms of licence? 6. Are the plaintiffs entitled for mesne profit against the defendant No. 1 from 1.10.1994 until recovery of the suit flat . Rs. 150/- per diem? 7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to declaration as prayed for? 8. Are the plaintiffs entitled to decree for eviction of the defendant No. 1 from the suit flat? 9. What other relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?
(3.) The crux of the matter is the status of the appellant. Evidence was led which was taken to be common for both the suits. On analyzing the evidence and examining the pleadings, the learned Court below has declared that appellant was not a monthly tenant and he was a licencee and on revocation of licence he had become a trespasser and as such, liable to be evicted. Accordingly the decree was passed for recovery of possession together with mense profits of Rs. 150 per diem. The appellant before us examined two witnesses before the learned Court below while the Patwaris examined only one witness. In any view of the matter. whatever the evidence that was adduced by the Patwaris, It was the bur- den of the appellant to prove his status as monthly tenant under section 102 of the Evidence Act. The learned Court below was not to be persuaded to accept the story of tenancy. He has given reasons therefor. On going through the impugned judgment. we find that reasoning and appreciation of evidence of the learned Trial Judge are without any flaw either on fact or in law. The appellant had failed to prove the case of tenancy.;