Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This civil revisional application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th January, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) 4th Court at Alipore, District - (South) 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 833 of 2010. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned Court below the plaintiff/petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order and to pass a decree for recovery of khas possession in respect of one bed room on the ground floor at Premises No. 1/27 Rupchand Mukherjee Lane, Calcutta-700025. The petitioner herein being plaintiff had instituted an ejectment Suit being No. 478 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) 4th Court at Alipore, against the present opposite party/defendant for recovery of khas possession on the ground that the present defendant had acquired a flat at Premises No. 88, at present 11, Beltala Road Police Station-Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700025. He got an ex parte decree on 23.01.2009. As in spite of getting the decree that defendant/opposite party did not vacate the suit premises, he had to file an ejectment execution case bearing No. 1 of 2010 and obtained possession of the said premises through the Court bailiff on 2nd March, 2010. Soon after getting the possession, the defendant/opposite party with his henchmen and police dispossessed him and trespassed into the said premises by breaking open the padlock forcibly. In such circumstances, he has again filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of khas possession.

4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff/petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant/opposite party had been paying Rs.115 as monthly rent and subsequently it was enhanced. It is not disputed that the plaintiff had filed ejectment suit bearing No. 478/2008 and got a decree from a competent Court. It is also not disputed that the said Court in connection with ejectment execution case bearing No. 1 of 2010 had directed the bailiff to execute the writ of delivery of possession.