JUDGMENT :

1. The instant second appeal is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for eviction of licencee and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court at Alipore, District-24 Parganas(south) in Title Appeal No. 66 of 2015 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated March 20, 2015 passed by the 1st Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 1252 of 2010.

2. The plaint case of the said suit is thus, the father of the parties was the owner of the entire first floor and the roof of the Premises No. 32/3A Gariahat Road together with the undivided share in the common areas of the said premises. He, by a registered deed of settlement dated August 10, 1990 settled the said first floor in favour of his younger son, the plaintiff and the said roof in favour of his elder son subject to the condition that so long he and his wife are alive, they would hold the said property as the trustees of the beneficiaries of the said deed and for their benefit, but they shall not be entitled to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber the said property, the further stipulation of the said deed was that the younger daughter of the settlor, the defendant, shall have a right of residence in one room of the said first floor, the suit room so long she is unmarried and in the event she becomes physically disabled, her brothers, the beneficiaries of the said deed of settlement would be obliged to maintain her and in the event of sale of the said property after the death of the settlor and his wife, she will be entitled to 1/6th share of the sale proceeds. The defendant got married after the death of the father but she returned to the said property after her marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce and she was permitted to stay in the suit room. The widow of the settlor died subsequently. In the mean time, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the said property as his elder brother by a registered deed of gift dated September 18, 2006 transferred his allotment in the said property to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant is a quarrelsome lady and has caused various nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and his family members, she even tried to forcefully occupy other rooms of the said property, the plaintiff under such circumstances was forced to revoke the license of the defendant to occupy the suit room by a notice dated May 06, 2010 even thereafter the defendant did not quit and vacate it, hence the suit.

3. The defendant contested the suit. In her written statement, she asserted her right to occupy the suit room on her own right which she claimed to have derived from the said deed of settlement. She denied that her right to reside in the said property was extinguished on her marriage. She denied the allegation of the plaintiff that she misbehaved with the plaintiff and his family members, on the contrary, she alleged that she was subjected to torture by the plaintiff and his family members.

4. Whether or not in terms of the said deed of settlement, the defendant still has right of residence in the suit property or it was extinguished with her marriage, is the main issue which the learned Trial Judge addressed in deciding the suit. The learned Trial Judge answered the said issue against the defendant, holding that in the deed, the settlor did not make any financial or residential arrangement for his other married daughters and there is also no provision for the said daughters to get any residential or financial support from the settlor in case their marriage is broken, therefore the intention of the settlor is clear that he intended to provide the defendant a right of residence in the said property till her marriage only. The Learned Trial Judge further held that the said intention of the settlor gets amplified when he, with unambiguous terms settled the said property in favour of his two