Swapan Kumar Saha vs Smt. Ratna Mukherjee & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4777 Cal

Dl. July 26,

21. 2022 S.A. 360 of 2016

Swapan Kumar Saha Vs.

Smt. Ratna Mukherjee & ors.

None appears on behalf of the appellant, nor any

accommodation is prayed on his behalf. The appellant also

remained unrepresented on July 11, 2022. The present appeal was

presented in the year 2014 without any effort or desire to move the

appeal for admission. However, in view of the earlier order dated

July 11, 2022, we propose to decide the question of admission of

the second appeal.

The present appeal has arisen out of a judgment and

decree of affirmance dated March 21, 2014 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Second Court at Sealdah, South 24-

Parganas, in Ejectment Appeal No. 11 of 2012 arising out of

judgment and decree dated August 31, 2012 passed by the learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Sealdah, in

Ejectment Suit No. 628 of 2004.

The original plaintiff filed the present suit, inter alia,

praying for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The

contractual tenancy got determined on October 1, 2004. The

allegation of the plaintiff was that the defendant/appellant kept the

suit property under lock and key for more than a year and that tried

to sublet the suit property. The plaintiff examined five witnesses

and produced fourteen documents whereas the defendant/appellant

produced five documents in support of his evidence. The trial court

framed thirteen issues. During the course of trial it appears that the

defendant/appellant was not found in the suit property for a

considerable period of time for which the ejectment notice was

returned with the postal endorsement "not claimed".

The plaintiff was able to establish that the suit property

is otherwise required by the son and daughter of the plaintiff, both

of whom are graduate, and at the relevant point of time they were

jobless and they were in need of one room for running a joint

coaching center.

The ground of reasonable requirement having been

proved and in view of the fact that the defendant/appellant had kept

the suit property under lock and key for more than a year, we do not

find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact

arrived at by both the court below. Moreover, we find no substantial

question of law involved in this appeal for which the same is

required to be admitted.

The second appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed

under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, nothing remains to

be decided in the application for stay filed under CAN 5971 of 2014

and the same is also dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

                                                   ( Soumen Sen, J. )



dns                                      ( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )