Bibek Chaudhuri - (1.)This is an appeal at the instance of the defendants of Title Suit No.252 1997 challenging concurrent finding of fact in a suit for eviction of licensee on revocation of licensee, recovery of possession and consequential reliefs.
(2.)The respondent, Smt. Shanti Devi, since deceased, being the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.252 of 1992 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Asansol stating, inter alia, that predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants, Jogeswar Shaw, was a licensee under the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. After the death of Jogeswar, the defendants-appellants approached Maheshwar Shaw, the father of the plaintiff, and after his death Shanti Devi to grant licence in respect of one shop room described in the schedule of the plaint. The original owner, named, Maheshwar, and after his death, Shanti Devi granted licence in favour of the predecessor-in-interest and after his demise to the appellants-defendants to run business in the shop room without any licence fee. Subsequently, the plaintiff revoked the licence and asked the defendants to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful possession of the suit shop room within a specific period of time. As the defendants failed and neglected to comply with the requirement of the said notice, she instituted the suit for eviction against the defendants.
(3.)The defendants-appellants contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement they denied the case of the plaintiff made out against them. Specific case of the defendants is that one Nathuram Bhadramal was the owner of the suit shop room. Nathuram inducted the grandfather of the defendants, namely Badri Shaw, since deceased, as a monthly tenant in respect of the said shop room at a rental of Rs.30/- per month in the year 1955. After the death of Badri, his son, Jago @ Jageswar Shaw, inherited the said tenancy. When Jogeswar was in occupation of the suit shop room, the father of the plaintiff purchased the suit property. The father of the defendants and after his death the present defendants-appellants became tenants under Maheshwar, father of the plaintiff. They regularly paid rent to Maheshwar and after his death to the plaintiff, but the landlords never issued any rent receipt in favour of them. The defendants paid rent up to the month of June 1997 amicably to the plaintiff. However, she refused to accept the rent for the month of July 1997 from the defendants which prompted them to send the monthly rent by money order to the address of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also refused to accept such money order. Finding no alternative, the defendants went on depositing rent with the local rent controller. Thus, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.