LAWS(SC)-2005-10-144

AMAR KUMAR SEN Vs. GITA RANI DAS

Decided On October 05, 2005
Amar Kumar Sen Appellant
V/S
GITA RANI DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal, by grant of special leave, against the judgement and order dated 11.5.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in appeal from Appellate Decree No. 101 of 1995. The High Court by the impugned judgement has allowed the second appeal filed by plaintiff-Respondents 1 to 3 and declared the decree passed in Title Suit No. 57 of 1984 as illegal and invalid and not binding upon Respondents 1 to 3. The appellant landlord, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, has been restrained from executing the ejectment decree passed in Title Suit No. 57 of 1984.

(2.) S.N. Das, the deceased tenant now represented by the plaintiff- Respondents 1 to 3 and his only son, Respondent 4 was inducted as a tenant in the year 1951 by Shri Anil Kumar Sen, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant with respect to the suit premises at 190-A, Sarat Bose Road, PS Tollygunge, Calcutta 700 029 at a monthly rent of Rs 60. S.N. Das expired on 14.4.1976. The appellant instituted Title Suit No. 57 of 1984 seeking eviction of Respondent 4 for possession of the suit premises in the Court of 3rd Additional Munsif at Alipore in which an ejectment decree was passed on 28.6.1985 ordering vacation of the suit premises within 90 (ninety) days and if not complied with, then the decree was to be executed through a court of law. The appeal filed by Respondent 4 against the ejectment decree was dismissed.

(3.) On 13.5.1986, plaintiff-Respondents 1 to 3 i.e. the wife of the deceased and his two daughters filed Title Suit No. 187 of 1986 in the Court of 3rd Munsif Judge, Alipore for declaration that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 57 of 1984 behind their backs (they were not made party- respondents in TS No. 57 of 1984) was illegal and invalid and not binding upon them and for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from executing the ejectment decree in respect of the suit premises against Respondent 4.