- (1.)THIS appeal is from the decree passed by Bijayesh Mukherji, J. on 3 February, 1965 (reported in 69 c. W. N. 469 ). The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit against the defendant-appellant and claimed possession of north eastern room in a flat of the plaintiff-respondent on the fourth floor of 44 (also known as 44/45) Ezra Street, Calcutta and further claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day on and from 1 November, 1962 until recovery of possession.
(2.)IN short the plaintiff respondent's case was that the defendant was granted leave and licence to occupy the said room without the use of bath or privy free of charges on the agreement that the defendant would vacate the room on demand. The plaintiff respondent asked the defendant in the month of June, 1962 to vacate the room. The defendant-appellant failed and neglected to deliver possession. The defendant-appellant alleged to be a tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent denied that there was any tenancy.
(3.)THE denfendant in the written statement pleaded that there was a tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant. The other defences were that the tenancy was not duly determined and the plaintiff-respondent did not reasonably require the room for the plaintiff's own use and occupation.