Ct. 8 vs Ardha Chandra Adhikari
2023 Latest Caselaw 3562 Cal

SAT 317 of 2016 Item-29. CAN 1 of 2016 (old CAN 7452 of 2016) 18-05-2023

sg Chand Shaw Ct. 8 Versus Ardha Chandra Adhikari

The appellant is not represented nor any accommodation is

prayed for on behalf of the appellant.

The matter is appearing in the daily cause list since 14 th

February, 2023. In spite of having due notice and knowledge that

the matter is pending, the appellant is not represented.

The appeal is defective since 4th August, 2016.

The appellate judgement and decree dated 4th May, 2016 and

6th May, 2016 affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court

in a suit for declaration with consequential relief for permanent

injunction is the subject matter of challenge in this second appeal.

The plaintiff claimed to be a tenant in respect of the suit

shop room under the defendant. The appellant/plaintiff contended

that he became a tenant under the defendant upon payment of rent

and he was running a cloth shop in the suit premises since 1970.

Suddenly, the defendant stopped receiving any rent and it was

alleged that the defendant illegally and wrongfully disconnected

the electric line of the suit premises on 29 th August, 2002. It is

further alleged that the defendant had to illegally dispossess the

plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit by filing written

statement. The defendant alleged that one Dasarath Prasad Shaw

took lease of one shop room from the elder brother of the

defendant, Purna Chandra, for a period of three years under a

written agreement. On his death, Jagadish Prasad carried on the

business in the suit premises and on his death, the present

defendant took possession of the suit premises but the plaintiff

again started making false claim over the suit premises.

The Trial Court on consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence, arrived at a definite finding that the

relationship of the landlord-tenant is not established. No rent

receipt was ever produced.

The First Appellate Court in affirming the judgement relied

upon the said evidence. The Appellate Court has considered the

evidences of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 and D.W.1. D.W. 1 has categorically

denied the relationship of landlord-tenant.

The plaintiff never claimed any tenancy right on the basis of

the lease deed executed between Dasharath and Purna Chandra.

Moreover, the defendant was not a party of the suit lease deed.

In the absence of any evidence of tenancy or production of

any rent receipt, the findings arrived at by the learned Trail Court

as well as the learned First Appellate Court do not call for any

interference.

The appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the connection

application also stands dismissed.

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