- (1.) The Court: This revisional application is as per Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is at the instance of the plaintiff of T.S. No.33 of 2000 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alipur.
(2.) That was a suit for eviction, recovery of khas possession and other consequential reliefs on the ground of default and sub-letting.
(3.) The fact leading to the filing of the said suit may be summed up thus- i) That the present petitioner who is a minor purchased the property in question from the owners. ii) The said property originally belonged to one Gadhadhar Kar and his wife Parbati Kar and one Sumitra Kumar Har, since deceased, was a tenant under them at a monthly rental of Rs.300/- payable according to English calendar month. After demise of the said tenant Sumitra Kumar Har, tenancy devolved upon his widow and two sons who were defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the said suit. Notice to quit arid notice of the suit dated 18.6.1999 by the Advocate on behalf of the petitioner was sent to the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The defendants of the said suit did not appear however, the sub-tenant Sri Subir Kumar Har who is Opposite Party in the instant application filed one application on 4.7.2000 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code with prayer for adding him as a party to the said suit. iii) In the said application the said Subir Kumar Har took the plea that his elder brother Sumitra Har was a tenant under one Usha Rani Devi The said Subir Kumar Har was residing in the suit premises jointly with his brother Sumitra Kumar Har since 1970 and rent receipts were granted in the names of Sumitra Har and Subir Kumar Har by the previous landlady Usha Rani Devi. Thereafter, the said Sumitra Kumar Har left the said premises and shifted to a Government quarter and requested the subsequent owners namely Gadhadhar Kar and Parbati Kar for change of tenancy in the name of Subir Kumar Har. Thereafter, Subir Kumar Har was accepted as a tenant and rent receipt was granted on 29.7.1996. It is the case of the Opposite Party No.4 that after transfer he tendered rent in favour of the present petitioner and when the same was refused, he was depositing monthly rent before the Rent Controller in the name of the present petitioner. iv) The present petitioner contested the said application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code by filing written objection wherein he took the specific plea that no specific date has been mentioned when Sumitra Kumar Har shifted his place of residence. Even the address of the Government quarter where Sumitra Kumar Har was. residing has not been mentioned. He denied that previous owners namely Gadhadhar Kar and Parbati Kar and thereafter Subhas Kar and Chitra Kar issued rent receipts in favour of the Opposite Party No.4 in the short form "S.K. Har". The present petitioner also took the plea that after purchase, the petitioner sent attornment notice on 12.3.1999 in the name of Sumitra Kumar Har by registered post with A/D and the same was signed by Sumitra Kumar Har and the AD Card came back. On the basis of notice, the Opposite Party No.4 gave the reply. The present petitioner apprehended that the signature of Sumitra Kumar Har was forged by the Opposite Party No.4. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per case of the Opposite Party No.4, Sumitra Kumar Har died in the year 1991 and the Opposite Party No.4 was accepted as tenant in the year 1996 and subsequently again in the year 1998. It is the specific plea of the present petitioner that some documents were manufactured by the Opposite Party No.4 so that he can prevail over the Court. v) It is the specific case of the present petitioner that even at the time of purchase, it has been mentioned in the Deed of Transfer that Sumitra Har was one of the tenant and the said fact has been stated by the vendors namely Chitra Kar and Subhas Kar. vi) Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code.;