Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. - (1.) In this suit a short but interesting question of law calls for determination. The question is whether the Sur-Charge levied by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation is the liability of the Landlord or of the occupier. It is agreed by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the State Bank of India, the first defendant, that the Court should proceed to decide the said question of law, on the basis of the documents tendered without any Oral evidence being adduced. It may be recorded that inspite of Notice issued to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, the second defendant, they have rot chosen to appear in the suit. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation is a proforma defendant and no relief has been claimed against the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.
(2.) This suit was instituted by several plaintiffs, seventeen in number, against the State Bank of India and Calcutta Municipal Corporation, first and second defendants respectively.
(3.) The case of the plaintiffs as appearing from the Plaint is that the Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 14 and one Ramesh Gupta entered into 14 several agreements all dated 10th July, 1979 with Chatterjee Polk Private Limited whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs agreed to purchase 14 several portions on the first floor of the premises No. 33A, Chowringhee Road Calcutta, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Premises'. At the time when the several 14 agreements were entered into the first defendant had already been inducted as tenant of the first floor of the said premises by Chatterjee Polk Pvt. Ltd.;