The jurisdiction of the Presidency Small Cause Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act extends to applications for eviction of persons occupying premises on the basis of permission, even if they are not licensees in the strict sense.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29. 04. 2002 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, calcutta. From the record, it appears that an application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, was filed by the plaintiff (who is the petitioner herein) for eviction of the defendant M. P. Singh. According to the plaintiff the said M. P. Singh was allowed to occupy the suit premises as a licensee and since the said licence had been revoked, the defendant cannot remain in the suit premises. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to get relief for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant therefrom.

( 2 ) THE learned Chief Judge ultimately, held that the suit by licensor against a gratuitous licensee is not. . . . . before the Presidency Small Cause court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the judgment reported in air 2001 Bombay 470 observed that the suit should have been filed before the City Civil Court or in the High Court depending on valuation. The learned chief Judge, therefore, on the ground of maintainability rejected the application of the plaintiff filed under Section 41 of the Presidency Small cause Courts Act.

( 3 ) THIS Court, however, while deciding the earlier revisional application being C. O. No. 1521 of 2002 specifically held that the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court was concerned in the interpretation of. . . . . . . . 'licensor' and 'licensee' as contained in the Maharashtra Amendment. The said words do not appear in Section 41 as applicable in West Bengal and therefore, in the said judgment it was held that the judgment of the bombay High Court has no manner of application in the State of West bengal. This Court categorically held while deciding the said application being C. O. No. 1621 of 2002 that the aforesaid judgment of Bombay High court is not at all applicable in the State of West Bengal and the learned chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta had and still has jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under Section 41 of the Presidency Small cause Courts Act in respect of the person occupying the premises on the basis of permission.

( 4 ) RELYING on the aforesaid decision of this Court in C. O. No. 1621 of 2002, I now hold that the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes court at Calcutta had erroneously held that the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is not maintainable before the Presidency Small Causes Court. The finding of the learned Chief Judge on the point of maintainability therefore, stands quashed and the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 41 of the presidency SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1882 should be held as maintainable.

( 5 ) THE learned Chief Judge, however, decided the said application filed by the petitioner under Section 41 of Presidency Small Causes Court act also on merits. Considering the evidence on record learned Chief Judge held that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case regarding induction of the defendant in the suit premises as licensee. The learned Chief Judge also recorded in his aforesaid judgment that from the evidence of the defendant it would appear that the said defendant has been residing in the suit premises alongwith his wife and children for more than 35 years and the learned Chief Judge therefore, disbelieved the claim of the plaintiff regarding grant of licence to the defendant w. e. f. 1 st February, 1999 without any consideration.

( 6 ) SINCE the plaintiff and the defendants are not closely related, the learned Chief Judge did not accept the claim of the plaintiff regarding grant of licence to the defendant without any consideration. The learned chief Judge also referred to the decision of Calcutta High Court reported in 2002 (1) CHN in th