ORDER :

1. This second appeal has come up for admission. However the appellant is not represented nor any accommodation is prayed on his behalf.

2. On the basis of the judgments of both the courts below and the materials available on record we propose to examine, if there is any substantial question of law involved in the second appeal.

3. The second appeal is arising out of the appellate judgment and decree dated 16th September, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Howrah, in Title Appeal No. 106 of 2016 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28th June, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Howrah, in Title Suit No. 138 of 2012.

4. It appears that plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 138/2012 contending that plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the two storied pakka building of residential accommodation on the first floor and shop rooms in the ground floor. Plaintiffs father inducted defendant as a tenant in respect of one shop room in the front side and one godown of the back side, on the ground floor of the said building at a monthly rental of Rs. 150/-without electricity. The tenancy of the defendant is guided under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Defendant is defaulter in payment of rent since January, 2005 and the suit property is also required by the plaintiff for his personal use and occupation. Defendant has willfully caused damages and material detoriation in the suit property and thereby creating nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and other members of the family. As such plaintiff sent a notice to quit dated 05.01.2012 to the defendant by registered post with A/D card and requested the defendant to quit and vacate the suit property. The defendant received the said notice to quit and also gave reply to the said notice through his advocate on 09.01.2012, but failed to vacate the same. Hence the suit. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and denied all material allegations made in the plaint. The defence contention is that originally maternal aunt of plaintiff’s father Saraswati Gupta inducted defendant as tenant in respect of one shop room and one godown at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-about 40 years ago. The defendant had never defaulted in payment of rent and rate of rent subsequently enhanced to Rs.150/-per month payable according to English Calendar month. Actually plaintiff paid rent from November 2011 hand to hand. Plaintiff never issued rent receipt to the defendant, inspite of several requests. Plaintiff have no cause of action to file the suit and accordingly defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Learned Trial Court framed as many as eight issues. Plaintiff in support of his case adduced himself as PW1 and proved deed of settlement in support of chain of title which is marked as exhibit 1 and deed of gift in his name marked as exhibit 3. Notice to quite dated 05.01.2012 marked as exhibit 4 and postal receipt is marked as exhibit 5. Reply given by the defendant to that notice to quit dated 09.01.2012 is marked as exhibit 6. Defendant in support of his case adduced himself as sole witness and he filed and proved 7 rent receipts ranging from 1995 to 2005 which are marked as exhibit ‘A’ and three money receipts which are collectively marked as exhibit ‘B’ and trade license for running business marked as exhibit ‘C’. Professional tax receipt is marked as exhibit ‘D’.

6. On behalf of the defendant/appellant, it was argued that ownership of plaintiff has not been proved and there is no averment as to how ownership devolved upon plaintiff. Moreover plaintiff admits that he is a co-owner and no suit can be filed by only one co-owner. Description of the suit property is also vague and as such even if decree is passed that would become inexecutable. However, it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that both the courts held that under Order VI Rule 1, C.P.C., only facts are required to be stated and how t