- (1.) Re: CAN 5935 of 2016 (an application for taking note of the death of Mina Sharma) The instant appeal was filed by the tenants/defendants. One of the defendants viz. Mina Sharma died on 14th January, 2016 i.e. after the disposal of the first appeal, but before filing of this appeal. She was spinster. All the legal representatives of the said deceased are already on record as the defendants/appellants in this appeal. Hence, the present application is disposed of by recording the death of appellant no. 1(d) viz. Mina Sharma with a note that her heirs are already on record as appellants herein. The application being CAN 5935 of 2016 is, thus, disposed of. Re: SAT 227 of 2016
(2.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 22nd December, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Title Appeal No. 106 of 2010 affirming the judgement and decree dated 18th March, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 16 of 1989 at the instance of the defendants/appellants. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for eviction against the defendants/appellants on various grounds including the ground of their reasonable requirement. The defendants contested the said suit by filing written statement denying the allegations made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The parties led evidence in respect of their claims. Learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and also their evidence was pleased to decree the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs/respondents. The appeal which was filed by the defendants challenging the said decree of the learned Trial Judge was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. Findings of the learned Trial Judge was affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court. Thus, the instant appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact with regard to reasonableness of the requirement of the plaintiffs/respondents. When both the courts below with concurrent findings of fact decreed the suit for eviction against the tenants/defendants on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs in the suit premises, this Court sitting in this jurisdiction does not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the said concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned courts below with regard to the reasonable requirement of the defendants/appellants in respect of the suit premises, particularly when we do not find any apparent illegality and/or perversity in the said judgements and decrees of the learned courts below. We, thus, do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We, thus, decline to admit this appeal. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed. Re: CAN 5924 of 2016 (Stay)
(3.) After we decline to admit this appeal, Mr. Sibasis Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the defendants/appellants submits that his clients will deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs/respondents provided some time is granted to his clients. On such prayer being made on behalf of the defendants/appellants, we permit the defendants/appellants to vacate the suit premises and give up vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiffs/respondents and/or their authorised agent positively on 31st May, 2017. Thus, the execution of the eviction decree being Title Execution Case No. 106 of 2010 pending before the learned court of the 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore will remain stayed till 31st May, 2017 subject to compliance of the following conditions :- 1. The defendants/appellants will have to submit an undertaking before the learned Executing Court stating therein that they will vacate the suit premises and will give up vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiffs/respondents and/or their authorised representative on 31st May, 2017 positively and during the period of their stay in the suit premises, they will not cause any damage to the suit premises and/or will not create any third party interest therein and/or will not induct any third party in the suit premises. Such undertaking will be filed by the defendants/appellants within two weeks from date. 2. During the period of their stay, the defendants/appellants will deposit the occupational charges at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month in the learned Executing Court. First of such deposit for the month of September 2016 will be made by the defendants/appellants in the learned Executing Court by 30th September, 2016 and for the subsequent month i.e. October 2016 will be deposited by the defendants/appellants in the learned Executing Court within 7th November, 2016 and for the subsequent months till April, 2017 will be deposited by the defendants/appellants within 7th of each following month occupation. 3. Arrear occupational charges, if there be any, will be deposited by the defendants/appellants in the learned Executing Court positively by 30th September, 2016.;