Arup Sanyal & Anr. vs Sipra Saha & Anr.

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th December, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 5th Court at Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 25 of 2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 6th August, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 4th Court at Alipore, in Title Suit No. 63 of 2007 at the instance of the defendants/appellants.

Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Here is the case where we find that the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants was decreed by the learned Trial Judge and the said decree was affirmed in appeal. The instant appeal is directed against the said appellate decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court.

On perusal of the materials on record, including the judgments and decrees of the court below, we find that both the courts below held that Amarendra Nath Sanyal was the sole tenant in respect of the suit premises. Though the defendants tried to make out a case that the defendant no. 2 and his brother, Amarendra Nath Sanyal, were the joint tenants in respect of the suit premises as both of them were jointly inducted as tenants therein by the landlord but the induction of the defendant no. 2 alongwith the said Amarendra Nath Sanyal was disbelieved by both the courts below. Thus, the concurrent findings of both the courts below is that Amarendra Nath Sanyal was the sole tenant under the plaintiffs/landlords in respect of the suit premises.

Admittedly, the said Amarendra Nath Sanyal died on 16th June, 2005. His wife pre-deceased him. At the time of death, Amarendra Nath Sanyal left his one son, namely, the defendant no.1, and one married daughter. Both the courts below found that the son of Amarendra Nath Sanyal, namely, the defendant no.1, left the suit premises during the lifetime of Amarendra Nath Sanyal and he started living in his own accommodation. The daughter of Amarendra Nath Sanyal was staying in her matrimonial home. Since none of the heir and/or heiress of the said Amarendra Nath Sanyal was residing with the said tenant, namely, Amarendra Nath Sanyal, at the suit premises, at the time of the tenant''s death, none of them inherited the tenancy of the said Amarendra Nath Sanyal on his death in view of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The defendant no. 2 also could not prove his authorised occupation in the suit premises.

When under these set of facts the courts below came to the conclusion that the defendants are trespassers in the suit premises and passed a decree for eviction against them, this Court sitting in this jurisdiction does not find any suitable ground to interfere with such concurrent finding of facts of both the courts below, we do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal.

We, thus, decline to admit this appeal.

The appeal is, thus, dismissed.