TAPEN SEN, J.

(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3. 9. 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 8664 (W) of 2006 with CAN 68 I6 of 2006 whereby and whereunder he was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by holding that the respondent No. 7 (daughter-in-law of the writ petitioner) was lawfully entitled to request the municipal Corporation to mutate the records by incorporating her name as a permit holder of the stall in question (hereinafter referred to as the shop).

(2) THE writ petition was filed by the appellant (Rajendra Kumar Majumdar)being the father-in-law of the respondent No. 7 (Smt. Krishna Majumdar)praying, inter alia, for an order commanding upon the Kolkata Municipal corporation, and its officers including its Mayor, to register/restore his name in the records maintained by the said Corporation as the original tenant in respect of shop No. E-5 situated in the Gariahat Market Complex AND not to register/mutate the name of his daughter-in-law (respondent No. 7) as a tenant with regard thereto.

(3) THE facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that the appellant /writ petitioner was the original tenant since 1955 in respect of the aforementioned shop and was running a business therein in the name and style of "sri Sri saradeshwari Dashakarma Bhandar" in the capacity of its lawful occupier and on the basis of a licence issued to him by the Corporation and for which, he was a regular tenderer of rent. He had three sons and two daughters out of which, his second son (Sajal Majumdar) had expired on 7. 12. 2005. This deceased son namely Sajal, and who was the husband of the respondent no. 7 (Krishna Majumdar), used to help him in managing the day-to-day affairs of the shop in question because his other children were totally independent, being well established. It was only Sajal who was unemployed and had an uncertain future.

(4) CONSIDERING his old age as well as the uncertain future of Sajal, he executed a Deed of Family Settlement and Trust on 26. 7. 1977 (Annexure-P3 to the writ petition) and by virtue thereof, he himself became the sole beneficiary and continued to be the rightful occupant/owner of the shop during his life-time. However, a clause was inserted in the said Deed of trust by reason whereof, it was provided, that in case he died before Sajal, then and only then, the ownership of the shop, together with all rights, title and interest appertaining thereto would vest and devolve upon him. There was a further clause that the Deed of Trust could be revoked only by a registered Deed of Revocation.

(5) THE petitioner further stated that on account of his old and frail health, he entrusted the administration and/or the business of the said shop upon Sajal and after early 1980, he (Sajal) began acting as the "de facto manager" of the shop but nevertheless, he (the petitioner) remained and continued to remain the original tenant and went on paying taxes regularly.

(6) THE petitioner further stated that Sajal, who was then unmarried, used to submit the accounts to him regularly but would take a nominal amount for his own expenditure. The petitioner stated that as time went by, he continued to grow older and gradually, more and more feeble. He started losing his grip over the business and had to rely totally upon Sajal upon whom he reposed full confidence. Sajal continued looking after his business and property and he also started to look after and maintain the petitioners family from the income coming from the business of the said shop.

(7) ON 19. 11. 2003, Sajal got married to Krishna (respondent No. 7) according to the Hindu Rites and Customs whereafter they started living as husband and wife in his house but soon thereafter, there was marital discord between themselves and Krishna started pressurizing him (her husband) to transfer the property in her name. She often quarrelled with Sajal as well as with the other family members and would also humi