Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, J - (1.) The suit, out of which the present appeal at the instance of the defendant No. 1 arises, was for permanent injunction for restraining the appellant and three other defendants (respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4) from interfering with the lawful possession of the tenancy of the plaintiff and his business at the suit-premises, consisting of two rooms and a tin-shed at premises No. 24/18, Girish Bose Road, Calcutta-14. The case of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 was that he was a tenant under the defendant No. 1 (appellant) in respect of the suit-premises at the rent of Rs. 500 per month payable according to English calendar month. It was alleged that though the plaintiff respondent No. 1 was carrying on business in motor repairing under the name and style of "Bishwakarma Motor Works" in the suit-premises, the respondents No. 2,:3 and 4 approached him on or about 26. 4.76 for giving up possession of the premises on the ground that the appellant wanted to erect a building on the land and that thereafter, when the plaintiff refused to accede to the proposal of the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the appellant and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 threatened the plaintiff for taking forcible possession of the suit-premises.
(2.) The defence of the appellant and the respondent No. 2 was that the respondent No. 1 was a licensee and not a tenant in respect of the suit premises and that there was no threat to the respondent No. 1 or any request to the respondent No. 1 to vacate the suit-premises on or about 26.4.76 as alleged in the plaint.
(3.) Four issues were framed in the suit. One of these issues, being issue No. 2, was whether the plaintiff was a lawful tenant in respect of the suit-premises, as alleged. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. The eldest son of the appellant examined himself as D.W.1. D.W. 2 was an Advocate, who had prepared the draft of a deed, Ext. A, and had made an endorsement about reading over and explaining the contents of the deed to the executants. According to the appellant, the respondent No. 1 was possessing the suit-premises on the basis of this deed, Ext. A, which was a deed of licence. After considering the evidence-of these witnesses and the materials on record, the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, City Civil Court. Calcutta (as His Lordship Sukumar Chakravarty, J. then was), found that the respondent No. 1 was inducted as a tenant under the appellant and was entitled to get a decree for permanent injunction. Accordingly, a decree for permanent injunction was passed in the suit. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.;