The burden of proof in benami transactions, the admissibility of documents marked as exhibits, and the sufficiency of a deed of release to pass title were central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Subhasis Dasgupta, J.

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th February, 2009 passed by the learned judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 76 of 2007, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29th June, 2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 565 of 1997 dismissing the Suit.

2. Appellant's/Plaintiff's case in short is that he is the owner of two storied suit building by a document of transfer (Deed of release/Muktipatra, dated 25.03.1988 Exhibit-'2') wherein respondent/defendant resides as a tenant in respect of one room in the ground floor, having tile shed on bamboo framed structure. According to plaintiff, the respondent/tenant committed default in the payment of rent since June, 1994, and since the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation of his family members, having no reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere, a eviction suit being T.S. 565 of 1997 was instituted against the tenant taking grounds of defaulter and reasonably requirement, as available in the tenancy legislation, after serving ejectment notice dated, 1st March, 1997, determining the tenancy of the respondent with the expiry of the month of April, 1997, which was duly accepted by tenant/respondent by putting his signature in A.D. card, and since the defendant/tenant did not vacate the suit premises in terms of the eviction notice, the instant suit found its emergence.

3. The respondent/defendant tenant contested the Suit by filing written statement denying all the material allegations of the plaintiff and contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff had sufficient accommodation in the suit premises, and the plaintiff also suppressed the accommodation which he has purchased during the pendency of the suit, and thus denied number of the family members of the plaintiff, stated in the plaint. In the written statement, defendant/respondent, also denied to have committed any default in the monthly payment of rent, as alleged, and further challenged the legality, validity of the service of eviction notice, and thus prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as eight issues, mentioned herein below:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present formant law.

2. Whether the notice to quit legal, valid and sufficient and has validly been served upon the defendant.

3. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent.

4. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises.

5. Whether plaintiff reasonably requires the suit property for his own use a occupation and for his family members.

6. Whether the plaintiff has any other, reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere.

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Decree as prayed for.

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief.

5. Both sides adduced oral as well as documentary evidence before the Trial Court. On the basis of the said evidence, learned Trial Court dismissed the suit disbelieving the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff/landlord after holding that the landlord/plaintiff had failed to establish his ownership over the suit premises, from which defendant was sought to be evicted, on the ground that the deed of release was not sufficient enough to vest title upon the plaintiff, as it was not a deed of conveyance, and further the plaintiff/landlord deliberately made misstatement in the notice of attornment (Exhibit-'A') so as to get the ownership and title of the plaintiff/landlord admitted by respondent/tenant.

6. The landlord/plaintiff filed Title Appeal being No. 76 of 2007 in the First Appellate Court, challenging the said judgment and decree. Learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal concurring the view, given by the learned Trial Court with regard to defective title of plaintiff/landlord so as to claim ownership over the suit building on the strength