Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The learned Trial Judge, further, held that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1.

The learned Trial Judge, thus, held that the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the suit against the defendant. Holding as such, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the said suit.

The legality of the said judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge is under challenge in this appeal before this Court.

After filing this appeal, the instant application was taken out by the appellant praying for stay of execution of the decree passed in the eviction suit being Ejectment Suit No. 217/2004-E. Even no material has been produced before this Court to establish the plaintiff's claim that Hiralal Das was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises and on his death his widow inherited the tenancy in respect of the suit premises.

We, thus, disbelieve the plaintiff's claim that he being a member of the undivided Hindu joint family became a tenant in respect of the suit premises.

Such being the position, we decline to pass any order staying further proceeding of the execution case being Ejectment Execution Case No. 268 of 2006 pending before the learned 5th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta.

The application for stay being CAN 11262 of 2015 is, thus, rejected.

(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)