- (1.) In the instant second appeal at the time of admission under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a question of law was framed by the Division Bench (Cor : A. K. Ganguly and Tapan Kumar Dutt, JJ) to this effect : "Whether the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court has committed an error on a substantial question of law in not properly construing the rent receipt which shows one room in the possession of the appellant and whether the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court should have held that the kitchen being a part and parcel of the human existence is not required to be written separately in the body of the rent receipt?"
(2.) Before dealing with the issue involved herein as to whether there is any substantial question as framed by the Division Bench has any merit, factual matrix of the case is being dealt with first.
(3.) This second appeal has been preferred by the tenant assailing the judgment and decree dated 24-5-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Howrah in Title Appeal No. 216 of 2001 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31-8-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 212 of 1995.;