JUDGMENT

Soumen Sen, J. - The appeal is arising out of a decree passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1314 of 2012 in a suit for eviction of the defendant/respondent on revocation of licence.

2. One Kanai Lal Chandra during his lifetime was the absolute owner of several properties including a tenancy in respect of a stationery, grocery shop in the front portion and one godown in the ground floor at 123/1, Bipin Behari Ganguly Street, P.S.- Muchipara, Kolkata - 700 012 under the landlord, namely, Hoplal Mathur Vaishya Charitable Trust. The said Kanai Lal Chandra died intestate on 27th January, 1977. His widow Bibhabati Chandra also died intestate on 22nd November, 1986, leaving behind fourteen heirs, heiresses and legal representatives. Upon the death of Kanai Lal Chandra and Bibhabati Chandra, all the legal heirs, by operation of law, became the joint owners of all the properties and became tenants-in-common in respect of the suit property, being shop room no. 10 at 123/1, Bipin Behari Ganguly Street, Kolkata. On 24th September, 1990, a registered partition deed was executed between the said fourteen legal heirs. By virtue of the said deed of partition, the shop room was allotted to two sons of Kanai Lal Chandra, Sri Chandra Nath Chandra and Sri Biswanath Chandra, since deceased, in the manner following:-

"Sri Chandra Nath Chandra (Fourteenth party therein) was allotted the Eastern Side being Lot "A" of the main shop room in tenancy right in all that a stationery shop and grocery shop room at the front road side in the ground floor at premises No. 123/1, Bipin Behari Ganguly Street, Kolkata - 700012 under the landlord namely Hoplal Mathur Vaishya Charitable Trust;

Sri Biswanath Chandra (Thirteenth party therein) was allotted all that back portion godown (rooms being Lot "C") in tenancy right in all that one godown in the back portion in the ground floor at premises No. 123/1, Bipin Behari Ganguly Street, Kolkata - 700012 under the landlord namely Hoplal Mathur Vaishya Charitable Trust." (emphasis supplied)

3. On the basis of the said deed of partition, Chandra Nath and Biswanath claimed to be joint tenants in respect of the property in question. Biswanath died on 16th December, 2011 as a bachelor. The defendant is the nephew of the plaintiff. It is alleged that in the month of September, 2011, the defendant approached the plaintiff for permitting him to store his goods in the portion of the said tenancy of the plaintiff, temporarily and free of cost, assuring that he would remove the same within a very short time and that he would arrange an alternative space in the meantime. On the basis of such assurance and taking into consideration the relationship between the parties, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to store his goods temporarily in a portion of the aforesaid premises purely as licensee under the plaintiff, free of cost. Since the defendant did not remove the goods within a reasonable period of time, the plaintiff, upon notice, revoked the license and sued for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The defendant filed its written statement in the suit. Before the learned Trial Judge, the defendant had contended that the plaintiff cannot have any right in respect of the Lot 'C' property allotted to Biswanath in view of the partition and accordingly, he was not entitled to an eviction decree in respect of Lot 'C' of the premises. The learned Trial Judge, relying upon the registered partition deed, arrived at a finding that since the plaintiff could not establish his right in respect of Lot 'C' property, the suit must fail, and, accordingly, dismissed the suit.

4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned Trial Judge has completely misconstrued the deed of partition and has interpreted the law incorrectly without understanding the nature and scope of joint tenancy. It is submitted that the parties knew since 1988 that it is a joint te