By a judgment and order dated 31st May, 1995, the learned Appellate Court held that although the plaintiffs have failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant by and between them and the defendant or that the defendant had been let into the tenanted premises on leave and license basis, the plaintiffs respondents are entitled to a decree for possession on the basis of his general title.
He prior to institution of the suit also served a numberice upon the appellant in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act asking him to handover peaceful and vacant possession alleging that he had been a tenant therein on a monthly rental of Rs.45/ under his vendor Safiqur Rahaman.
The learned trial judge having regard to the rival pleadings of the parties framed the following issues Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to bring this suit?
2671 of 1996.
The relationship between them was, thus, denied and disputed.
The respondents purchased the suit premises from Safiqur Rahaman on 21st July, 1980 by three registered deeds of sale.
Is the suit barred by law of limitation?
Have the plaintiffs landlord and tenant relationship with the defendant?
To what other reliefs, if any are the plaintiffs entitled?
Have the plaintiffs right, title and interest in the suit property?
Is the suit barred by the principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?
Have the plaintiffs served valid numberice u s 106 of the T.P. Act?
Indisputably, the respondent No.1 filed a suit being Title Suit No.88 of 1990 in the Court of Munsif, Raghunathpur, District Purulia West Bengal inter alia praying for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises and mesne profit claiming themselves to be the owners and landlords thereof.
Is the suit barred by provisions of the S.R. Act?
253 of 2006 in RVW No.
The defendant has failed to prove his independent title over the suit property.
The respondent No.1 preferred an appeal thereagainst marked as Title Appeal No.
Appellant herein is said to have entered into possession of the suit premises in the year 1970.
The plaintiffs having failed to prove the tenancy are number entitled to a decree.
The learned trial judge opined The plaintiffs have proved to be the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from the admitted owner S.K. Abdul Wahid Molla ii.
Originally, he claimed to have companye into possession in the said premises pursuant to or in furtherance of an agreement for sale entered into on or about 18th March, 1970 by and between him and S.K. Abdul Wahid Molla, the father of Safiqur Rahaman.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Whether a Civil Court can pass a decree on the ground that the defendant is a trespasser in a simple suit for eviction is the question involved in this appeal.
Appellant denied and disputed that he had ever been a tenant of Safiqur Rahaman at any point of time.
20/1993.
Are the plaintiffs entitled to get the decree as prayed for?
It arises out of a judgment and order dated 17th August, 2006 passed by a learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court in C.O.A. No.
This finding was, however, reversed by the lower appellate companyrt and number without companyent basis.
The plaintiffs have failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiffs and the defendant iv.
The suit premises is a shop situate in a small town companymonly known as Raghunathpur in the district of Purulia.
