JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Both these appeals are directed against a common judgment of a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court, disposing of the two Second Appeals namely Second Appeal No. 331 of 1997 and Second Appeal No. 482 of 1996. Second Appeal No. 331/97 was by the defendants in Title Suit No. 64/84 and the said suit had been filed for eviction of the defendants and for recovery of possession, and the suit had been dismissed by the trial Judge. On appeal being carried, the Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal, decreeing the plaintiff s suit. Defendants approached the High Court in Second Appeal and the High Court by the impugned judgment, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Judge and the plaintiffs are the appellants in the civil appeal in question. The other civil appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 116/80. The said suit also having been dismissed by the Trial Judge, the matter was carried in appeal by the plaintiffs in lower Appellate Court and the Assistant District Judge, Sealdah, allowed Title Appeal No. 144/89, thereby decreeing Title Suit No. 116/80. Defendants carried the matter to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 482/96 and by the impugned judgment, the High Court was of the opinion that the suit itself was not maintainable and accordingly, allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit.

2. The suit for eviction was based on the ground that the land in question had been taken under a lease deed for a period of 15 years with a right to sub-lease, by the father of the plaintiff. In view of the terms of the lease deed, defendants 1 and 2 had been given the sub-lease and they having failed to pay rent, money suit had been filed for realisation of the rent. Subsequently, suit for ejectment had been filed and stood disposed of on the terms of agreement and in accordance with the said terms, plaintiff took over the possession and became the lessee w.e.f. 1.2.1979. The sub-lease of the defendants had been determined w.e.f. November, 1978 but notwithstanding the same, the defendants forcibly occupied and, therefore, the possession is that of trespasser. The plaintiff thus filed the suit for eviction. The contesting defendants denied the rights of the plaintiff and contended that they had become lessee under the original lessor and not sub-lessee, as contended in the plaint. According to them, the period of lease in favour of plaintiff s father, having expired and there being no material to establish that the defendants were inducted as sub-lessee under the lessee, the plaintiff has no right to file suit for eviction and, therefore, the suit must be dismissed. The learned Trial Judge on an analysis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not acquire any right over the land but only on the structure and defendants became lessee under the original lessor. The Trial Judge found that the status of the defendants is that of a trespasser, but yet in the absence of any evidence that plaintiff had sub-let the land to the defendants, suit for eviction will not lie. With these conclusions, the suit having been dismissed, the matter had been carried in appeal to the lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the basic approach of the Trial Judge on the pleadings of the parties was wholly erroneous. According to the lower Appellate Court, the earlier decree of the Civil Court, awarding damages against the defendants for unauthorised occupation, unequivocally establishes the fact that the defendants have no right to be on the land. The lower Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that in view of the terms of the sub-lease, the suit for sub-lease expired on 31.12.1978 and defendants cannot claim any interest subsequent to the same. The lower Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the creation of sub-lease in favour of the def