AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.—Being unsuccessful in connection with Order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) 4th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 125 of 1995, the defendant/petitioner has filed this revisional application on the ground that the learned Court below could not appreciate the position of law in its proper perspectives and failed to consider the judgment of Supreme Court in connection with Sk. Jahangir v. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., reported in 1987 (supplementary) Supreme Court Cases 630.
It appears that the defendant/petitioner has filed an application praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the present plaintiff/opposite parties have filed the instant suit and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. In the said application it has been specifically stated that there was no cause of action to file such suit and the appropriate course would be to withdraw the suit and thereafter to file a suit afresh.
As against this, the plaintiff/opposite party denied all the material averments splashed against him. It was also specifically contended in the said written objection that one Rajuram claiming himself as alleged constituted attorney of the defendant/petitioner, but no power of attorney was submitted before the Court below. The case was at the stage of evidence of the defendant/petitioner and only to protract the suit, they have made such innovative idea. The plaintiff/opposite parties specific case is such, that they have been substituted under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code vide Order dated 25.02.2005 and against which the present defendant/petitioner has not preferred any revisional application. He, however, admitted that initially the suit premises belonged to some other person and after purchasing the suit property from him, he stepped into the shoes of his predecessor-in-interest. Since he has taken a plea of reasonable requirement also, so he had to wait for three years as per statute.
On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Court below has considered the case of Sk. Jahangir v. Smt. S. Kaushalya Bi & Ors. along with the decisions of our High Court and, thereafter, has rejected the application of the defendant/petitioner with cost of Rs.500.
In course of hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant again relied on the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court. As against this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has contended that the impugned order does not call for any interference. He has relied on the decisions reported in 2015 (3) CLJ Cal 136, an unreported decision of Division Bench in connection with S.A.T. 402 of 2013, and unreported decision of Hon''ble Apex Court passed in connection with Inder Sengupta v. Smt. Prova Rani Chakraborty & Anr., Smt. Uma Mishra Sanyal v. Manoranjan & Ors. reported in 1992 (2) CHN 407, Satya Gopal Saha v. Sneholata Saha reported in 1989 (1) CLJ 256 and Samar Sarkar v. Asit Sarkar reported in 1990 (1) CHN 107. After going through the said judgments it appears to me that the ratio of the said judgment goes to show that the question of bona-fide requirement of the landlord in accordance with law or in other words in short that such a course of action is permissible even though the suit was filed within the prohibited period of three years. In the judgment reported in 2015 (3) CLJ Cal 136 Division Bench of this Court held that the grounds which are made available to the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit due to occurrence of subsequent events can be introduced by the plaintiffs by way of amendment of plaint, any view contrary to this, cannot be subscribed by this Court. If such a view is taken then on occurrence of each particular set of subsequent event, a fresh ground of eviction will be constituted, the plaintiff will be required to institute eviction suit on each occasion whenever such new ground will be made available to him during the pendency of the suit but such a situation cannot even be conceived of by any Court as the basic principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceeding will be frustrated if such view is taken. Judgment cited by the petitioner do not fit in this case.
Therefore, considering the circumstances I am of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference.
The civil revisional application stands dismissed but without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Court below for his information and taking necessary action in accordance with law.
Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.