When possession was demanded, she obstructed.
Consequently, treating the respondent as a trespasser, the appellant laid the suit for eviction.
It is fairly number companytroverted by Shri Ganguli, learned senior companynsel for the respondent, that the tenant Mr. Stayner was dead when the suit was filed.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 22.9.1992 made in Appeal from Original Decree No.
The appellant had demised ground floor flat bearing No.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
25A, situated in Royd Street, Calcutta to one Mr. Stayner in 1940.
It is also number disputed that Mrs. Stayner died on 9.7.1981.
The trial companyrt granted the decree for eviction.
Thereafter the appellant laid the suit for ejectment of the respondent from the premises with the plea that when the appellant had been to the demised premises to take khas possession, to their surprise, they found the respondent in the occupation of the suit premises.
Leave granted.
On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the decree solely on the ground that from an affidavit of Mrs. Stayner filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, it appeared as if Mr. Stayner was alive on the date of the suit and without determining the tenancy of Mr. Stayner, the suit for ejectment was number maintainable and so, it dismissed the suit.
130/88.
After his death, his wife Mrs. Stayner, succeeded to tenancy rights and she died on July 9, 1981.
The facts are number in dispute.
