Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3248 Cal
Judgement Date : 8 May, 2023
SAT 294 of 2015
Item-29.
08-05-2023
Chaya Khamurai & Ors.
sg
Versus
Ct. 8 Rabindranath Khan.
The appellants are not represented nor any accommodation
is prayed for on their behalf.
The matter initially appeared in the warning list on 6 th
March, 2023 and thereafter transferred to the regular list on 21 st
March, 2023. There was a clear indication in the list that the
matter shall be transferred to the daily cause list on 21 st March,
2023 and since then, the appeal is appearing in the list. In spite of
having due notice and knowledge that the matter is pending, the
appellants are not represented. The appellants have also not taken
any step to remove the defects as notified by the Additional Stamp
Reporter on 1st July, 2015. It is clear that the appellants are not
interested to proceed with the matter.
We could have dismissed the appeal for non-removal of the
defects. However, we propose to have a look at the judgments of
both the courts in order to find out whether the second appeal
involves any substantial question of law. We have also read the
grounds of appeal.
The judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 25th
March, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), 3rd Court at Howrah affirming the judgment and
decree dated 30th June, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah in a suit for eviction is the
2
subject matter of challenge in this second appeal.
It appears from the judgment of the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court that, Sova Rani Jati was a tenant in
respect of one room, one kitchen under Joydeb Khan and after
her demise, her daughter, Maya Mullick, used to reside in the
said tenancy and Joydeb Khan instituted a suit, being Title Suit
No. 217 of 1995 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)
2nd Court at Howrah against Maya Mullick in respect of the said
tenanted premises and the suit was decreed in terms of
compromise and thereafter, Maya Mullick vacated the tenanted
portion and the present plaintiff started residing in the said
premises.
The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of one room and
one kitchen. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on reasonable
requirement in resect of other premises and evidence on record
would show that the requirement of the plaintiff necessitated
eviction of the plaintiff from the said premises. The relationship
of landlord and tenancy was proved. Obtaining of possession of
the respondent/plaintiff in the other suit property was inadequate
and insufficient. Moreover, the plaintiff was able to prove that
the defendants have acted contrary to Clauses M, O and P of
Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. This finding of facts
does not appear to be perverse.
On such consideration, we are of the view that this second
appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and we
also do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by
the learned First Appellate Court affirming the judgment and
decree of the learned Trial Court.
The second appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!