RADHA PROSAD SHARMA Vs. BEJOY SETT
LAWS(CAL)-1996-2-24
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 16,1996

RADHA PROSAD SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
BEJOY SETT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M N CLUBWALA VS. FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS. CHANDRAMAUL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KARTICK CHANDA GHOSH VS. ARUN KUMAR GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2016-11-10] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.Panigrahi, J. - (1.)- This appeal arises from the Judgement and Decree dated 7th March, 1984 and 15th March, 1984 respectively in T.S. 1460 of 1977 in the Court of 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta directing eviction against the appellant from the suit premises.
(2.)The respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed the suit for eviction of the appellant (hereinafter referred as defendant) from the suit premises. The plaintiff claims to be an absolute owner of the premises No. 106/1A. S.N.Banerjee Road, P.S. Taltola, Calcutta which consisted of the main building and also a tin shed in front of it. In addition to the building and tin-shed, there are other eight rooms, bath and privy in the back portion thereof. She lived in the suit house after the death of her husband long since. Her only son was living in hostel studying medicine in the R.G.Kar Medical College. The defendant gained confidence of the plaintiff since he was Introduced by the latters father and the defendant agreed to perform drudgery house-hold duties and also acting as a guard in the suit house. On the request of the defendant the plaintiff inducted him as a monthly tenant in respect of the out house. But the defendant betrayed the confidence and neither paid the rent in respect of the house nor vacated the premises, as a result of which the plaintiff was obliged to bring an ejectment suit No. 1242 of 1965 followed by the decree of eviction. She put the decree in execution and look delivery of possession thereof. The plaintiff executed a deed of gift to her son giving him the back portion of the suit house which has been separately numbered as 106/1 which stood in his name of her son and the front portion is numbered as 106/1-A where she is shown as the owner.
(3.)After the eviction decree the defendant was rendered homeless and entreated the plaintiff for allowing him to stay for few months on the landing space of the staircase. On human approach she allowed him to continue for sometime and thus, he stayed in the staircase for two years and again reposed bust in the plaintiff which led her to agree to part with the tin-shed of the ground floor on leave and licence. Accordingly, the defendant came to possess the tin-shed as a licensee under the plaintiff in or about 1968. But 2 or 3 years after when the defendant started a new business-adventure in the suit premises fixing some machineries, the plaintiff objected against such high handedness and issued a registered notice through the advocate revoking the licence.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.