A party may be granted leave to defend a summary judgment proceeding if there is a faint chance of success in the suit, even if the available material discloses a remote possibility of success.

1. The Court: This is an application under chapter 13A of the Original Side Rules of our High Court, the plaintiff claims to be the owner of a very valuable property of 17,000 Sq.Ft. more or less situated at the 6, Lyons Range,Kolkata – 700001 which is a business hub of the city.

2. The plaintiff files a suit for recovery of possession after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

3. That the relationship of the parties is governed by the provision of Transfer of Property Act is not disputed having regard to the composition of rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is also not under dispute.

4. The defence raised by the defendants in this proceeding is of a prior suit instituted by the defendants claiming a declaration of ownership in respect of the suit premises. The defendant sthat after receiving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant discovered certain materials and documents to show that by operation of law the said premises has vested by operation of the provisions of the Coking Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1972. The property has vested in the defendant and in view thereof, the defendant has no obligation to pay any rent and occupation charges. The defendant says that the amount so far paid to the plaintiff was on misconception of law and fact and accordingly the plaintiff is required to refund all the monies realised on the basis of a representation made by the plaintiff that the said plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question.

5. Mr. S.K.Kapoor, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the plaint has no any spine and backbone to stand and an incredible story has been spun of an alleged discovery of a fact in the month of October, 2012 as to the legal status of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises.

6. The pleadings according to the learned senior Counsel are so absurd and incredibly ridiculous that this Court in exercise of its power under Chapter 13A not only should allow this application for summary judgement but nip in the bud all proceedings initiated by the defendant. It is submitted that the tenancy is governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and in absence of anything to show that the said notice is invalid in law that the defendant cannot resist a final judgement for recovery of possession.

7. Mr. Kapoor has referred to the documents disclosed by the parties in this proceedings to establish that the plaintiff was a managing agent of Lodna Colliery and the said colliery was provided a table space at the said office premises. In fact, there are documents and records to show that the possession at the relevant time was with Allahabad Bank who was a tenant in respect of the suit premises.

8. Accordingly the contention of the defendant that at the time when the Coking Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1972 came into force, Lodna Colliery was owner of the property in question is not only absurd but contrary to record. In support of his submission that the defendant was all throughout aware that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises, Mr. Kapoor has referred to the agreement dated 18th December, 1962, the letter dated 31st August, 1973 from Turner Morrison to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., the letter of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. dated 15th February, 1973 and the minutes of the meeting held on 28th February, 1974. It is submitted that even after the coming into the operation of the Nationalization Act the defendant did not dispute the ownership of the plaintiff and has agreed to take on lease the property in question which clearly shows that the defendant had clearly acknowledged the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises.

9. Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that the cause of action pleaded in the plaint is would be the defence