The plaintiff must prove tenancy, and the absence of rent receipts and legal steps to establish tenancy can weaken the claim.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 30, 2002 in Title Appeal No. 173 of 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah, reversing the judgment and decree dated August 30, 2000 passed in Title Suit No. 16 of 1996 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6th Court, Howrah, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Court of appeal below has committed error in law allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit declaring that the plaintiff is a tenant overlooking altogether that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is a tenant in respect of the suit property and mere production of the Ration Card and Voter Identity Card does not ipso facto prove that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the suit properties, thus, the learned Court of appeal below committed grave error in law in holding that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the suit premises.

2. This Court is called upon to take into consideration the following substantial questions of law framed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court;

“(1) Whether in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act it is clear that in order to claim a right of tenancy one has to produce a rent receipt and in case rent receipt was not granted one has to satisfy that he has taken recourse to the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Act which provides a remedy for refusal to grant rent receipt and the Court of appeal below committed grave error in law in holding that the plaintiff is a tenant in view of the fact that the plaintiff has proved his tenancy on production of Voter’s Identity Card and Ration Card.

(2) Whether the Learned Court of Appeal below committed grave error in law in holding that the plaintiff is tenant since no legal steps were taken to evict the plaintiff who is a trespasser, overlooking altogether that the plaintiff has failed to produce a scrap of paper in support of tenancy.”

3. The brief fact leading to the instant appeal is that the plaintiff is one of the tenants in respect of one room at 15, Kumar Para Road, Police Station-Liluah, Howrah at a monthly rental of Rs.10/- payable according to the English Calendar month. His father Monmohan Paul, since deceased was previous tenant in respect of two bedrooms with kitchen at a monthly rental of Rs.20/- under the landlord Kamal Kanta Das, since deceased and Amal Kanta Das. During the subsistence of the tenancy the plaintiff’s father surrendered one room in favour of the said landlord and the defendants’ father Janardan Majumdar was then inducted in the said room by the said landlord.

4. Since at the time of plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff himself, his mother, grandmother and brother used to reside in the said room being held by the plaintiff’s brother as the premises tenant.

5. By an advocate’s letter dated January 31, 2006 the plaintiff was informed that the defendants/appellants herein were the sons of said Janardan Majumdar who claimed that the said premises is owned by them and alleged that the plaintiff is occupying one room of mud wall with tile shed at the said premises forcefully.

6. Prior to that letter the defendants with the help of antisocial elements tried to cause forcible eviction of the plaintiff for which the plaintiff was compelled to file a Miscellaneous Petition being M.P. No. 1483 of 1995 in the Court of S.D.M.(Ex.) Court, Howrah and filed the suit before the learned trial Court for declaration that he is one of the premises tenant in respect of the suit property mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint having tenancy right devolved upon him after the demise of his father Monmohan Paul, who was the original tenant in the suit room and further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the suit room.

7. According to the plaintiff/respondent he continued to pay monthly rentals at the rate of Rs.10/- per month but as a good relationship was prevailing be