Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The instant application under Article 227 of the constitution of India is directed against a judgment and decree dated August 30, 2011 passed by the learned Judge XIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 705 of 2006.
(2.) The petitioner filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of a room. The case made out by the petitioner in the plaint of the said suit in a nutshell runs thus: The proforma defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit room on the ground floor. The defendant No. 1 claims to be the landlord of the premises in question. On 18.3.2006, the proforma defendant handed over possession of the suit room in favour of the plaintiff. Suddenly on May 20, 2006, the husband of the defendant No. 1 wrongfully and illegally put padlock on the entrance door of the suit room and as such the plaintiff was unable to enter into the suit room. Thus, the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit premises. On May 23, 2006, the plaintiff lodged a complaint against the husband of the defendant No. 1 with the Officer-in-Charge of Muchipara Police Station. Hence, on the grounds as aforesaid the plaintiff/petitioner herein filed the instant suit.
(3.) The original defendant namely Biswanath Gupta was contesting the suit by filing a written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint. It was specifically denied in the said written statement that the proforma defendant was/is a tenant in respect of the suit room. It was specifically contended therein that the proforma defendant was a driver and was working for a limited period under the defendant. He was given accommodation of the suit room for discharging his duties as a driver purely on leave and license basis and the said license was revoked by the defendant. It was further contended therein that the plaintiff was residing with his uncle who happens to be a tenant under the defendant. The plaintiff in collusion with the proforma defendant tried to occupy the room forcibly but due to resistances of the defendant the plaintiff failed to occupy the same.;