The main legal point established in the judgment is that the status of a person occupying a property as a tenant or licensee must be proven by the standard of a man of ordinary prudence, and the evidence presented must be sufficient to establish the claimed status.

JUDGMENT

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and decree passed by the learned 10th Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 519 of 2001 and Title Suit No. 671 of 2001, both the suits were tried analogously and disposed of by a common judgement and decree passed on 20th July, 2007. For proper appreciation of the appeal it is expedient to delineate the facts of the case in brief.

2. Depicting themselves as owners of the suit property, Sri Subir Kumar Banerjee and Sri Saswata Bandyopadhyay filed a suit against Madhusudan Ghosh for recovery of possession and mesne profit. It is their specific case that they acquired the ownership of this property in suit by purchase on 8th January, 2001. Smt. Subala Bala Sahu was the erstwhile owner of the property. The plaintiffs/respondents herein further stated that they used to reside in the suit premises and their father Sri Bhupendra Kumar Banerjee was a tenant. Sri Sailesh Chandra Sengupta was another tenant and after his demise on 20th February, 1997 Smt. Mira Senguptta and Sakti Prasad Sengupta stepped into his shoes and became tenants. Sengupta family left the said premises in the year 1997 keeping one of the two bed rooms and kitchen let out to them under lock and key. They allowed the defendant Madhusudan Ghosh who illegally to occupy one room, bathroom and privy (hereinafter referred as 'suit premises'). On or about 16th October, 2000, Smt. Mira Sengupta and Sakti Prasad Sengupata surrendered their tenancy in favour of the owner of the property and delivered possession of one bed room and kitchen to the owner, the other room was given to the defendant as licensee. Sri Dulal Chandra Sahu son of Smt. Sushila Bala Sahu lodged a General Diary with the local Police Station and informed the police about this fact.

3. The defendant Madhusudan Ghosh became trespasser in respect of the said property he was possessing pursuant to surrender of tenancy by the Senguptas. The defendant does not have any right to occupy the suit property. The defendant without obtaining any license from Calcutta Municipal Corporation and other statutory authorities started the business of printing press which was the source of noise pollution and it was causing damage to the age old property. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to stop running the machine but it was not adhered to. On the contrary the defendant and his associates threatened the plaintiffs.

4. Several representations were made by the plaintiffs to various authorities over such illegal act of the defendant. Ultimately, they filed an application on 18th January, 2001 under Section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defendant used to create nuisance in the suit property under the influence of liquor, police was informed. It was further contended that the plaintiffs are in need of space for their own use and occupation. By filing this suit, the plaintiffs prayed for recovery of Khas possession of the suit premises after evicting the defendant and also prayed for mesne profit @ 800 per month from the defendant.

5. Defendant Madhusudan Ghosh contested the suit by filling written statement denying all material allegations made against him. The defendant expressed his ignorance about the transfer of ownership as the erstwhile owner Subala Bala Sahu did not inform him regarding attornment of tenancy. It is the specific case of the defendant that he has been occupying or possessing the suit property as tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, separate bath and privy on the ground floor of the house being inducted by Subala Bala Sahu. Dulal Sahu son of Subala Bala Sahu used to collect monthly rent but did not issue rent receipts on regular basis. The defendant used to pay rent either by cash or by account payee cheque. It is contended by the defendant that Smt. Mira Sengupta and Sakti Prasad Sengupta were not tenant under Subala Bala Sahu at any point of time. The defendant was inducted in respect