Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amitava Basu vs Basabi Sarkar & Ors on 3 July, 2019
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1 9 03.7.2019
SAT 142 of 2019 gd with CAN 4803 of 2019 Amitava Basu Vs. Basabi Sarkar & Ors.
Mr. Prabir Chandra Ghose ..for the Appellant CAN 4803 of 2019 is treated as on day's list. This is a complete waste of time where a licensee who has not been able to establish the slightest modicum of title in the property seeks to cling on thereto.
The suit was filed on or about September 26, 2011 shortly upon the owner discovering that the licensee attempted to put up an illegal construction. The licence appears to have been granted in the year 2009 to the defendant or a predecessor who was a district inspector of schools. The defendant sought to assert that the defendant or the defendant's predecessor had been inducted at the premises at a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. The case made 2 out in the written statement was that such rent was regularly paid and the rent was subsequently increased to Rs.2200/- per month, but the landlord did not issue any rent receipt to the defendant. In addition, it was claimed in the written statement that the electricity charges and municipal rates and taxes for the property were also deposited by the defendant.
In course of the evidence, which has been analysed threadbare by the first appellate court, the defendant could not establish that there was any agreement in the nature of tenancy. The defendant could not establish that any rent had been paid to the plaintiffs or to any person on behalf of the plaintiffs at any stage. The defendant not only could not produce any rent receipt, but the lower appellate court discovered that the defendant resorted to subterfuge to try and mislead the court. Though the suit was instituted in September, 2011, postal receipts of December, 2011 and thereafter 3 were sought to be relied upon by the defendant in support of the defendant's contention that amounts on account of rent were tendered to the landlord but the landlord refused to accept the same. There was no document attempted to be presented that pre-dated the institution of the suit.
On a complete misreading of the evidence, the trial court declined to grant the relief to the plaintiffs. The first appellate court corrected the wrong by going through the evidence all over again and giving cogent reasons as to why the defendant could not be said to have any right in respect of the property in question.
No legal issue of any significance is raised by the defendant in seeking to prefer the second appeal. A judgment of this court reported at 2002 (1) CHN 385 (Prabir Kumar Ghosh v. Anita Ghosh) has been placed for the inane proposition that the non- production of rent receipts does not completely demolish the case of tenancy. 4 Indeed, it does not require any authority to be cited for the proposition that it is always open to a party to establish such party's status as tenant by cogent evidence notwithstanding the fact that no rent receipt may have been issued in respect of the relevant tenancy.
The evidence before the trial court did not bring out the relationship of landlords and tenant as between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant could not establish, by oral evidence or otherwise, that the defendant was a tenant at the premises in question. In the circumstances, the status of the defendant had per force to be regarded as that of a licensee. Since the plaintiff-owners had instituted the suit, it was evident that the licence stood revoked. The defendant had no defence to the claim for eviction made by the owner of the relevant premises.
For the reasons aforesaid, there is no ground to admit the second appeal. 5
For the utter waste of time indulged in on behalf of the would-be second appellant, the defendant will pay costs assessed at Rs.5,000/- to the West Bengal Legal Services Authority.
SAT 142 of 2019 and CAN 4803 of 2019 are dismissed.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Suvra Ghosh, J.) 6