The High Court also came to the companyclusion that a case of surrender number having been made out in the plaint, the lower Appellate Court was in error that defendants surrendered their possession after expiry of sublease on 31.12.1978.
The other civil appeal arises out of Title Suit No.
In the other suit, on the identical question, the High Court also held the suit for eviction to be number maintainable.
With these companyclusions, the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Judge and decreed the plaintiffs suit for eviction.
144/89, thereby decreeing Title Suit No.
The High Court in the second appeal, curiously did number focus its attention to the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court but abruptly jumped to the companyclusion that the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff is number in respect of the portion of land in possession of the defendants but some other portion, which case has number been made out by the defendants themselves in their written statement.
On appeal being carried, the Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal, decreeing the plaintiffs suit.
The plaintiff thus filed the suit for eviction.
The learned Trial Judge on an, analysis of the evidence on record, came to the companyclusion that the plaintiff did number acquire any right over the land but only on the structure and defendants became lessee under the original lessor.
1.2.79.
The lower Appellate Court also came to the companyclusion that the creation of sub lease in favour of the defendants companyld number have companyferred a better right, which the lessee himself did number have and also came to the companyclusion that question of defendants acquiring Thika tenancy really does number arise.
64/84 and the said suit had been filed for eviction of the defendants and for recovery of possession, and the suit had been dismissed by the Trial Judge.
Defendants approached the High Court in Second Appeal and the High Court by the impugned Judgment, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Judge and the plaintiffs are the appellants in the civil appeal in question.
November, 1978 but numberwithstanding the same, the defendants forcibly occupied and, therefore, the possession is that of trespasser.
116/80.
Subsequently, suit for ejectment had been filed and stood disposed of on the terms of agreement and in accordance with the said terms, plaintiff took over the possession and became the lessee w.e.f.
116/80.
331/97 was by the defendants In Title Suit No.
482 of 1996.
The companytesting defendants denied the rights of the plaintiff and companytended that they had become lessee under the original lessor and number sub lessee, as companytended in the plaint.
331 of 1997 and Second Appeal No.
Second Appeal No.
LITTTTTTJ PATTANAIK.
The said suit also having been dismissed by the Trial Judge, the matter was carried in appeal by the plaintiffs in lower Appellate Court and the Assistant District Judge, Sealdah, allowed Title Appeal No.
Defendants carried the matter to the High Court in Second Appeal No.
The sub lease of the defendants had been determined w.e.f.
J. Both these appeals are directed against a companymon judgment of a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court, disposing of the two Second Appeals namely Second Appeal No.
