Milu Rani Dutta vs Jyotsna Das
2022 Latest Caselaw 8318 Cal

Dl.4   December              S.A.T. 2186 of 2007
48.    14, 2022

                             Milu Rani Dutta
                             Vs,
                             Jyotsna Das

                              The matter appeared in the warning list on November

                  29, 2022 with a clear indication that the matter would be transferred

                  to the daily cause list on December 5, 2022 before the regular

                  bench. Since then the matter is appearing in the list. The present

                  appeal is of the year 2007.

                              Today the appellant is not represented, nor any

                  accommodation is prayed for.

                              It appears from the record that on December 5, 2007

                  none had appeared on behalf of the appellant and a co-ordinate

                  bench of this court, upon noticing that certified copies of the

                  judgment and decree of the trial court were not filed, directed the

                  matter to go out of the list. The office reports that the defects

                  pointed out by the additional stamp reporter in his report dated

                  September 21, 2007 have not yet been removed. Notwithstanding

                  the defects, we propose to consider the question of admission of the

                  present second appeal on the basis of the materials available on

                  record.

                              The judgment and decree of affirmance dated March

                  19, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast

                  Track Court at Hooghly, in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2004 arising out

                  of judgment and decree dated November 24, 2003 passed by the

                  learned   Civil   Judge       (Junior   Division),   First   Court   at

                  Chandannagore, Hooghly, in Title Suit No. 127 of 1997, which is a
                         2




suit for eviction of a licensee, is the subject matter of challenge in

this appeal.

               We have carefully considered the judgments of the trial

court as well as the first appellate court. The plaintiff/respondent

was able to establish her ownership and title over the suit premises

and that the possession of the defendant/appellant in respect of the

suit premises is that of a licensee. It appears that Jalada Sundari was

a monthly tenant under Sukumar Chandra Das and that after the

death of Sukumar, her mother was residing in the suit premises in

the capacity of a tenant but as Sukumar had no legal heir, she

remained in the suit premises without paying any rent. The factum

of licence was established by way of exhibit 6, whereas the

defendant/appellant had failed to establish that her mother was a

premises tenant in respect of the suit premises and that the appellant

after demise of her mother inherited such tenancy.

On such consideration, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts

below.

Having found no substantial question of law involved

in this appeal for which the same is required to be admitted, the

same is summarily dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code

of Civil Procedure.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the connected

application filed under CAN 7481 of 2007 also stands dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

 ( Uday Kumar, J. )                                  ( Soumen Sen, J. )








dns