- (1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of reversal dated 22nd december, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Sealdah in title Appeal No. 33 of 1999 reversing the judgment and decree dated 26th february, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court at sealdah in Title Suit No. 386 of 1988, at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/respondent herein. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a licensee under them in respect of the suit premises comprising of one bed room with a kitchen and separate bathroom with privy, locker passage and veranda in the ground floor at premises no. 12, Dr. Asutosh Sastri Road, beleghata at a licence fees of Rs. 500/- per month. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant was initially inducted as a licensee in January, 1984 for a fixed period and subsequently the said licence was extended from time to time but ultimately by a letter dated 21st March, 1987 the defendant undertook to vacate the suit premises by 28th February, 1988 but since the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises even after 28th February, 1988, the instant suit was filed. The plaintiffs also made an alternative claim in the said suit by stating inter alia that in the event it is found that the defendant is a tenant in the suit premises then he should be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of section 13 (1) (j) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as the defendant undertook to vacate the suit premises on the basis of his undertaking as aforesaid.
(2.) THE defendant/respondent contested the said suit by filing written statement contending inter alia that he is a tenant under the plaintiffs. The defendant denied that he is a licensee under the plaintiffs in the suit property. The defendant claimed that his tenancy consists of one more additional room besides the suit premises and since he was dispossessed from the said room by the plaintiffs, he prayed for recovery of possession of the said room by way of counter claim. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective claims in the said suit.
(3.) THE learned Trial Judge, after considering the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence on record ultimately passed a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Judge, in fact, gave much stress and reliance on the notice which was admittedly given by the defendant on 21st March, 1987 whereby he undertook to vacate the suit premises by 28th February, 1988. The learned Trial Judge held that since the defendant himself in the said letter described him as a licensee in respect of the suit premises and further since he also stated therein that he is not a tenant and will not claim tenancy right in the suit premises, his claim for tenancy right cannot be believed. The learned Trial judge further held that had the defendant been a tenant in respect of the suit premises, then he should have produced the rent receipt to prove his tenancy or in case of non-issuance of rent receipt by the landlord, he should have taken steps for issuance of certificate regarding payment of rent by the controller as per section 25 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956. Since the defendant failed to prove payment of rent to the original plaintiff in respect of the suit premises, the defendant's claim for his tenancy right in the suit premises was disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge also has drawn adverse inference against the defendant for non-examination of the person who allegedly introduced the defendant with the original plaintiff for negotiation of the terms of such alleged letting.;