Sk. Bagbul Haque vs Sk. Md. Quasin & Ors

Biswajit Basu, J

The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for ejectment and is directed against Order No. 44 dated September 18, 2019 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 113 of 2015.

The petitioner in the suit filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' in short) for determination of the dispute regarding relationship of tenant and landlord between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

In the said application the defendant/petitioner has contended, inter alia, that he was inducted in the suit property by one Dr. Sk. Sahanul Haque who has purchased the suit property before it was purchased by the plaintiffs. Therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has rejected the said application for the failure of the defendant to produce document to substantiate his said claim.

Mr. Bijay Adhikari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in course of the hearing of the revisional application produces some documents to contend that the said Dr. Sk. Sahanul Haque is the owner of the suit premises and he had inducted the defendant in the suit property as tenant as such there is no relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties to the suit.

He submits that the defendant may be given an opportunity to produce the said documents to substantiate his said claim.

Mr. Arif Ali learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties submits that the defendant in spite of getting enough opportunity did not produce any document to establish his claim that the said Dr. Sk. Sahanul Haque is the owner of the suit premises or he was inducted by the said Dr. Sk. Sahanul Haque.

He further submits that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises from the admitted owner of the said premises. The dispute raised in the said application is sham in the absence of any document impeaching the title of the plaintiffs over the suit premises.

Heard learned advocate for the parties. Perused the materials on record and the documents produced by Mr. Adhikari in course of hearing of the instant revisional application which have been taken on record.

The documents produced by Mr. Adhikari, disclose about a deed executed in favour of said Dr. Sk. Sahanul Haque. The said documents prima facie appear to be in respect of the suit premises. The defendant, therefore, should be given an opportunity to produce those documents in support of his claim made in the said application under Section 7(2) of the said Act inasmuch as decision on the said application has a bearing in the ultimate result of the suit.

The order impugned is therefore set aside. The learned Trial Judge is requested to decide the said application under Section 7(2) of the said Act afresh after giving opportunity to the defendant to produce document in support of his claim made in the said application and after giving the plaintiffs to produce evidence in rebuttal.

The learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of the said application within the period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

C.O. 4297 of 2019 is, thus, disposed of.

In view of the disposal of the revisional application, the connected application being CAN 12423 of 2019 for stay of the connected ejectment suit has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.

There shall be no order for costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.