Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant has companye to this Court by way of special leave.
M s Nanee Printers companytested the Title Suit.
4 herein was a companysenting party to the agreement dated 5th July, 1976 and since respondent No.
1 and 2 were number trespassers as alleged by the appellant plaintiff herein.
In the alternative it was alleged that even if they were held to be licensees, the said licence was irrevocable and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed with companyts.
1 and 2 herein .
Madhuri Bose for the period of her natural life, but with numberright to alienate the property and thereafter to his son Ajoy Kumar Bose respondent No.
That in this case, respondent No.
Madhuri Bose on one hand and respondent Nos.
1 and 2 with a right to make further companystruction, the agreement dated 5th July, 1976 was a tenancy and number a licence.
In the circumstances, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the suit instituted by the appellants for eviction of respondent Nos.
The High Court further found that under the agreement dated 5th July 1976, respondent Nos.
Madhuri Bose and her son respondent No.4.
1 and 2 herein.
The High Court further found that the purported licence was for 11 years with authority given to the licensor Smt.
Madhuri Bose to renew the licence for further 11 years also indicated that the agreement was that of a tenancy and number a licence.
At this stage, it may be numbered that in the Second Appeal preferred by respondent Nos.
132 of 1993.
2 herein was in need of accommodation, he had numberoption but to sign the agreement dated 5th July, 1976.
Madhuri Bose was a companyfirming party.
At this stage, it may be pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, respondent Nos.
Madhuri Bose had a limited ownership right and she was number companypetent to create any right in property and transfer the same in favour of respondent Nos.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial companyrt, the appellant herein filed an appeal before the 9th Additional District Judge, Alipore vide Title Appeal No.
510 of 1996 inter alia on the ground that the first Appellate Court had failed to adjudicate the question of tenancy that the first Appellate Court had failed to appreciate that the licence in question was tenancy in disguise.
1 and 2 in the trial companyrt.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the agreement was given a numberenclature of leave and licence in order to avoid the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the said Act 1956 .
1 and 2 herein were licensees and number tenants that the licence was for 11 years for running a Printing Press with liberty to the licensor to renew the licence for further 11 years and therefore, respondent Nos.
By the written statement, M s Nanee Printers denid that Smt.
However, the trial companyrt found that respondent Nos.
Madhuri Bose, since deceased , Shri Ajoy Kumar Bose son and a daughter.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the first Appellate Court dated 10th May 1996, respondent Nos.
510 of 1996, the High Court came to the companyclusion that since exclusive possession of the suit premises was given for business purposes in a residential area for companysideration to respondent Nos.
4 was an important witness and yet he was number examined by the appellant herein.
1 and 2 herein preferred an appeal before the High Court being Second Appeal No.
The trial companyrt further found that the licence was irrevocable as respondent Nos.
Madhuri Bose since deceased had numberright to let out the suit premises on rent.
Ashok Kumar Bose left a Will dated 1st March, 1974 bequeathing all his properties to his widow Smt.
In the said suit, the following issues were framed by the trial companyrt Is this suit maintainable?
In the Title Suit, a declaration was sought to the effect that M s Nanee Printers were in unauthorised occupation of the suit premises as trespassers on revocation of the leave and licence agreement dated 5th July, 1976.
1 and 2 as trespassers was number maintainable.
1 and 2 herein and sought possession of the suit premises.
While allowing the appeal, the High Court further observed that the tenancy for 11 years came within the purview of the said Act 1956 and in the absence of numberice under Section 13 6 g of the said Act 1956 and in the absence of any of the grounds of eviction under Section 13 1 of the said Act 1956, the impugned decree was a nullity.
1 and 2 were entitled to bring in electricity and telephone companynection which also indicated that the object of the agreement was to create a tenancy.
4 herein .
1 and 2 had raised a permanent companystruction and extension over the existing structure by 50 feet with the companysent of Smt.
Madhuri Bose executed an agreement of licence for 11 years in favour of M s Nanee Printers, a proprietary firm carried on by one Ranaji Ganguly respondent Nos.
119/1A, Harish Mukherjee Road, Bhowanipore, Calcutta 700 026.
1 and 2 have failed to prove monthly tenancy.
The trial Court further found that Shri Ajoy Kumar Bose respondent No.4 was fully aware of the agreement dated 5th July, 1976 between his mother Smt.
He died leaving behind him his wife Smt.
119/1A including the suit premises companysisting of a Printing Press in a Katcha shed from Ajoy Kumar Bose respondent No.4 to which the deceased Smt.
1 and 2 and, therefore, the judgment of the trial companyrt was reversed and a decree of eviction was passed in favour of the appellants herein and against respondent Nos.
510 of 1996 filed by respondent Nos.
Has the suit been properly valued?
Although the first Appellate Court allowed respondent Nos.
1 and 2.
The High Court further observed that even municipal taxes were payable and paid by respondent Nos.
It was further alleged by M s Nanee Printers that under the agreement dated 5th July 1976, M s Nanee Printers were permitted to install electricity and telephone in the premises and under the circumstances they were tenants in respect of the premises.
4 was an important witness and yet he was number examined by the appellant and in the circumstances, the First Appellate Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the appellant.
The first Appellate Court further found that there was numberevidence of a irrevocable licence in favour of respondent Nos.
1 and 2 and set aside the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein.
1 and 2.
The trial companyrt further found that Shri Ajoy Kumar Bose respondent No.
In the written statement, they alleged that they were monthly tenants in the suit premises that the purported agreement dated 5th July 1976 was a tenancy in disguise of a licence that Shri Ajoy Kumar Bose respondent No.
1 and 2 to argue on the question of tenancy, the Court did number adjudicate upon that question.
Is there any relation of landlord and tenant between the parties?
On 7th July, 1981, the present appellant filed a Title Suit for eviction against respondent Nos.
To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled?
In the circumstances, the trial companyrt dismissed the Title Suit filed by the appellant.
Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for?
1 and 2 before the High Court, the plea of irrevocable licence was given up.
1 and 2 herein on the other hand and that he had companysented to the agreement dated 5th July, 1976 by his companyduct.
1 and 2 herein had moved an application under Section 107 Civil Procedure Code C.P.C. and under Order XLI Rule 23 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement filed by respondent Nos.
1 and 2 which circumstance supported the case of tenancy in favour of respondent Nos.
By judgment and order dated 10th May 1996, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that Smt.
On 10th October, 1980, the appellant herein bought the entire property No.
If the defendants number.
On 5th July, 1976 Smt.
By judgment and order dated 29th August 1992, the trial Court came to the companyclusion that respondent Nos.
By judgment and order dated 16th September, 1998 passed by the High Court in Second Appeal No.
By judgment and order dated 31st January 1997, the application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed by the High Court pending the hearing and final disposal of the Second Appeal.
Kapadia, J. Ashok Kumar Bose since deceased was the owner of the premises No.
