SANJIB BANERJEE, J

The plaintiff claims a decree for eviction against the first defendant on the basis of what has been pleaded in the written statement of such defendant. The plaintiff suggests that for the determination of a lease or a tenancy by a lessee or a tenant to be complete, it is imperative that possession of the premises be handed over to the lessor or the landlord. The plaintiff insists that since it is admitted in the first defendant’s written statement that possession was not made over by the first defendant to the plaintiff and possession was, in fact, made over to the third defendant as a sub-tenant, the plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession and there is no disputed fact that needs to be carried to a protracted trial.

At the relevant time, the first defendant was a tenant in respect of a flat or office space at a well-known landmark on Chowringhee under the plaintiff. The second defendant, at the material time, was the owner of the entirety of the building. The third defendant is the present occupant of the concerned office premises, having come into possession thereof as a sub-tenant of the first defendant.

The plaintiff refers to the written statements filed by the three defendants and the consistent case therein that possession of the premises had not been surrendered by the first defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff says that the entire mala fide exercise has been orchestrated at the behest of the second defendant. The insinuation is that there must have been substantial extraneous consideration for the first defendant to have removed itself from the relevant premises and allowed the third defendant in. The plaintiff suggests that it is inconceivable that the third defendant came to be ultimately in possession of the premises merely on the strength of the transaction that has been pleaded or what appears on paper. The plaintiff hints that the three defendants, particularly the first and the second, colluded with each other to effectively dispossess the plaintiff otherwise than in accordance with law and the statements in the written statements entitle the plaintiff to a judgment on admission.

The plaintiff has claimed an immediate decree for eviction and for arrears of rent and licence fee on the plaintiff’s understanding of the admission made in the written statements. The plaintiff’s claim is summarised at the following subparagraphs of paragraph 23 of the petition:

“(a) The respondent No.1 in its written statement as well as by way of letters dated 27th August, 1999 and 4th October, 1999 has categorically admitted that it has taken direct tenancy of the area in question from the respondent No.2. This amounts to transfer and/or assignment of the area in question by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2 against the express directions of the petitioner.

(b) The respondent No.1 in his written statement has admitted parting with possession of the area in question to the respondent No.3 with effect from 1st of September, 1999.

(c) The respondent No.2 in his written statement has confirmed granting of direct tenancy of the area in question to the respondent No.1 with effect from 1st September, 1999.

(d) The respondent No.2 has also admitted the sub-letting of the area in question by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.3.

(e) In the written statement of the respondent No.3 it has admitted having taken possession of the area in question from the respondent No.1 under a sub-letting arrangement.”

In the first defendant’s written statement it is pleaded that such defendant took the premises for office purpose and expected the central air-conditioning to function thereat. The first defendant has complained that since July, 1999 it did not receive water for the central cooling tower to allow air-conditioning facilities at the suit premises and the supply of water to the suit premises was altogether cut off thereafter. The employees of the first defendant and visitors t