Smt. Suprava Mondal vs Adwaitya Kumar Das & Ors.

Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant to rectify the defects in the memorandum of appeal which are curable by him.

Let the certified copies of the judgement and decree of the learned Trial Court which are filed in Court today, be kept with the record and the same be treated as part of the memorandum of appeal.

Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant to implead Chitta Ranjan Mondal son of late Srihari Mondal as appellant No.2 in this appeal.

This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 7th October, 2015 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Contai, Purba Medinipur in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2015 affirming the judgement and decree dated 31st January, 2015 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Contai in Title Suit No. 76 of 2007, at the instance of the defendant/appellant.

Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or not.

Here is the case where we find that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction against the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 /appellants for recovery of possession of the suit premises from them on revocation of licence.

The learned Trial Judge passed a decree for eviction against the defendants/appellants. The said decree was also maintained in appeal before the Learned First Appellate Court. Both the Courts below concurrently found that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 were licensees under the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The defendants/appellants are unable to show that they have a better title in the suit property than the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Admittedly, the suit property belonged to the plaintiff/respondent No.1.

When under such circumstances, both the Courts below passed a decree for eviction against the defendants/appellants as the permission granted to them, was duly revoked by the plaintiff/respondent no.1, we do not find any illegality and/or absurdity in the findings of the Courts below for which interference with the impugned judgment and decree, is necessary. Accordingly, we feel that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, we decline to admit this appeal.

The appeal is, thus, dismissed.

Since the appeal is disposed of in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the stay application.

The application for stay being CAN 672 of 2017 is thus, deemed to be disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.