- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for permanent injunction and recovery of possession and this appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25th November, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2038 of 1983 thereby passing a decree for Khas possession by evicting the appellant from the suit property.
(2.) THE case made out by the plaintiff-respondent may be summed up thus: (a) The respondents purchased the property from the then owner and subsequently, the appellant and three other illegal occupants of the house instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 893 of 1979 in the City Civil Court at calcutta impleading the respondents as the defendant nos. 2 and 3 respectively and their vendor as the defendant no. 1. In that suit, the present appellant along with three others prayed for injunction restraining the respondents and their vendor from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs therein and for mandatory injunction to demolish a room described in schedule 'b' to that plaint. (b) The present respondents contested the said suit thereby contending that by virtue of their purchase from the previous owner, they acquired absolute title to the property and that the present appellant as well as the other three plaintiffs of the earlier suit had no right of tenancy as falsely claimed therein. (c) The learned Trial Judge on contested hearing dismissed the said suit holding that the present appellant and the other three plaintiffs therein had no right in the said property. (d) Being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs of the earlier suit including the present appellant preferred an appeal before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court on contested hearing dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. (e) During the pendency of the said first appeal, the respondents before us filed the suit for eviction and permanent injunction against the appellant as mentioned earlier out of which the present appeal arises. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and the specific defence taken by the appellant was that he and the other occupants were the sub-tenants in the property with the consent of the vendor of the respondents before us and after the surrender of tenancy by their immediate landlord, they became direct tenants. Such defence was also taken in the earlier suit filed by the appellant and the three other occupants.
(3.) THE learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the respondents had acquired right, title and interest over the property by virtue of their purchase and that the appellant had no right in the property and his defence of tenancy was disbelieved. The learned Trial Judge, thus, decreed the suit by granting a decree for recovery of possession against the appellant.;